Quote of the Day 8-26-10

Anyone who ever has seen a pair of little hands waving at her from the sonogram screen knows that a living human being — not simply a “clump of cells” or “potential life” — inhabits the womb of a pregnant woman.

So abortion-rights advocates now argue that what you see on that sonogram is human and alive but not a human person and, therefore, not entitled to rights.

… Some abortion-rights advocates define personhood by location — as in, outside the womb — or by such qualities as rationality and autonomy….

If being human is not enough to entitle one to human rights, then the very concept of human rights loses meaning. And all of us — born and unborn, strong and weak, young and old — someday will find ourselves on the wrong end of that cruel measuring stick.

~Colleen Carroll Campbell, STLToday, August 26

14 thoughts on “Quote of the Day 8-26-10”

  1. Colleen – that’s right.  If you don’t uphold justice for all human beings, then what you’re enforcing (by default) is “might makes right”, which has dire consequences for almost everyone.
    Another way of stating “might makes right”:  war.

  2. And isn’t that baby adorable!

    Oh, Pamela, don’t be silly!  That’s not a BABY!  I mean, it *looks* like a baby, and *moves* like a baby and has all the organs and DNA of a human baby, but it’s NOT a BABY.  Pssh.

    The politically correct thing to say would be “isn’t that product of conception adorable!”

    Sheesh, get it right next time, will ya? Jump on the dehumanization train! :D ;)

  3. I think I’d rather be RUN OVER by that train than jump on it, Kel.  ;) Come to think of it..I’d rather be run over by a train than be ‘pc’, too. :D

  4. Please tell me this is a minority view.

    Yes, this is a minority view.  The author fails to discuss
    the principle of double effect.  While Scripture is infallible, his interpretation of Scripture isn’t.   His discussion failed to provide a sufficient number of verse references, so there’s no way I can tell the extent and context of his Biblical argument.

    That said – he’s not claiming women with ectopic pregnancies “need to die”, but to trust in God for the outcome.

    While this may be laudable to discuss as a preacher, it’s a different matter when confronted with reality.

  5. There are situations in which an ectoptic pregnancy would not be fatal.  There have been babies born full-term who were implanted somewhere besides the fallopian tube, such as on the outside of the uterus or elsewhere in the abdomen.  I don’t necessarily think that an ectoptic pregnancy should automatically be considered a death sentence for the mother if it continues, although as far as I know the more common ectoptic which is implanted in the fallopian tube should be handled as such.  I think the OB should be honest and open with the woman and discuss her other options if the baby is implanted somewhere other than the fallopian tube.

    I didn’t read the article, Ashley, but this is my opinion.  Ectoptic pregnancies implanted in the fallopian tube are invariably fatal for the baby – after the tube ruptures I don’t think the baby would survive anyway, and there’s no sense in losing both baby and mother.  With that being said, I think “health of the mother” abortions (not treatment of tubal ectoptic pregnancies, but actual abortions) are a big fat crock of crap.

  6. “With that being said, I think “health of the mother” abortions (not treatment of tubal ectoptic pregnancies, but actual abortions) are a big fat crock of crap.”

    Especially when the baby has gotten big enough that s/he has to come  out of the womb in one piece. At that point it’s just a question of whether the baby will come out alive or dead.

  7. Yeah, I think it’s been pointed out that post-viability abortions are never medically necessary. (Unless you’re performing an “abortion procedure” on a dead fetus, which is different. This was my objection to the partial-birth abortion ban: that was the safest way to remove a second-trimester miscarriage, supposedly.) If you’re truly in a medical crisis but the baby is old enough to Uossibly survive, there’s no sense in killing it before removing it from the woman.

  8. Language, people!  But I digress… indeed if a woman’s life were really in danger, would anyone really believe that the 2-day or more laminaria-first procedure is safe?  Like a woman has time to sit around waiting for seaweed to puff up before they kill her child with a pair of scissors?  No!  What is safe is to attempt an early delivery, immediately, by cesarean.  However, these life threatening situations (I’m not a dr. and can’t remember a fancy name for really high dangerous blood pressure) are actually rare, unlike voluntary abortion on healthy babies and mothers.
    And you already know that it’s a minority, nutter view to believe a mother should suffer. I remember at a pro-life event one of the counter protesters yelled out that it was just like any other surgery. Sure, that’s why women have years of nightmares after getting breast implants. That’s why women give testimony of how the appendectomy destroyed their lives… oh wait, they don’t. Abortion is so hard for women to recover from, mentally and physically, because it is so wrong. It is so unnatural, the body senses it’s an abomination. This is not a religious belief. It is a biological fact.

  9. Um… Most abortion these days happen while it is still just a tiny clump of cells… The more frequent use of morning after drugs will make sonograms almost completely unnecessary. Ella-one will stop a pregnancy long before it has “little arms to wave at you…”

    BTW you are making the assumption that those arms are waving at you… The fetus doesn’t know you’re looking at it so at best, it is waving at nothing. You are further assuming that the fetus is “waving” just like when you look at a dog and say “oh look at those sad eyes you must have miss me” you are equating a dogs mannerisms to a humans to draw a desired conclusion. One that has no basis in reality or is backed up with scientific facts. It could just be fluid moving around and causing the “arms” to move like your hair when you’re underwater, something we have no control over. I see this as normal actions of a growing fetus and not some silent communication between me and a fetus that just happens to fit in with my political views on abortion… You are trying to fraudulently pull on peoples heart strings to bring them around to your predetermined political narrative with no scientific facts to back up your claim. Just more “heartfelt” propaganda from the “Pro-Life” movement…

  10. Well ninek the honeymoon is over…

    Yes it is true that there are some chemical hormonal events that occur after a premature termination of a pregnancy. There is no disputing that as it is quite evident even in a miscarriage situation. However, in both miscarriages and abortions the chemical effects don’t last too long, usually a few days, after that most women who choose to end their pregnancy feel no guilt and go back to their regular lives. The women who feel guilty after the fact feel that way because of the false belief that they killed a child. Now I wonder where they would get that idea? Oh yes I know, religious beliefs, both personally and in this Christian driven society. Abortion doesn’t make women feel guilty, people make women feel guilty. Women who “Regret My Abortion” have been lied to and have had guilt forced on them by a Christian society. They have bought into this guilt so fully that they then make themselves the “victim” of a procedure they elected to have…

Comments are closed.