potential, I think of a possibility for the
future, someone that doesn‘t actually exist
but could come about, something not yet
physical or real. For those who argue that
the fetus is just a blueprint of a person, let
me say — a house plan will never
become
a
house but an embryo will become a baby.
136
Therefore, he must be more than a
blueprint; he must be a baby-in-the-
making.
If the fetus was just a
potential, then you could
visit a psychiatrist or
exorcist for an abortion!
A lot of people believe the fetus is a
potential life and that this somehow
justifies taking that life. Yet, since the fetus
is already physically in existence, an
abortion must be a physical action as
opposed to just psychological. After all, if
the fetus was just a potential, then you
could visit a psychiatrist or exorcist for an
abortion! Instead, you go to someone who
will physically remove the child. Because
the child is physical and it does exist now.
Let‘s read the next section and see why
people are offended by being shown photos
of ―potential life.‖
46
A potential offense
How can we charge that it is vile and
repulsive for pro-lifers to brandish vile and
repulsive images if the images are real?
137
—Naomi Wolf,
The New Republic
he offensive photographs of aborted
fetuses would not be offensive if the
fetus was just a potential person
because, after all, if the fetus was just a
potential, she wouldn‘t exist to be
photographed in the first place! Logically,
the fetus must not be a potential because
photographic evidence shows actual body
parts that resemble a person.
I‘ll be honest with you. I don‘t like those
abortion photographs either, but isn‘t it
better to have viewed them and been
informed rather than seeing them too late?
America, wake up! The pictures of
abortions that most people find so gross to
look at are revolting.
138
They will make
your stomach retch. They are the shocking,
in-your-face reality of abortion.
For a common first trimester abortion
you might see a tiny human form. She is
mutilated and lays in a pool of her own
blood, a victim of being in the wrong place
at the wrong time. Oh, and did I mention
her little arms and hands so beautifully
formed. Beside a dime they look miniature
still. Sometimes the two little legs are still
attached to the torso. To remove it from the
mother‘s body, the head is usually crushed
or mangled. What was her crime that she
deserved a death like this? She was
unwanted.
Indeed, it‘s hard not to get emotional
when you‘re looking at the crushed remains
of an abortion — that by every means, sure
looks like a baby to you.
Wait till you hear about a second
trimester abortion. (I‘ll save you from the
description.)
PS. For those who believe pro-lifers
show fake aborted fetuses, do check out the
actual fetal specimens in this book for
medical students — Marjorie A. England,
Life Before Birth.
139
PPS. You Tube recently removed
(without reason) a video by Live Action
Films showing a Planned Parenthood
employee telling two patients that the
photos they saw on the internet were not
real. ―Um, no. It‘s not real. No, It‘s not. And
you know what? Um, what I‘m, what
I‘m…The thing is that… Um, it‘s, it‘s not
real.‖
140
(She stumbled over that one!)
Compare that
with the following
confession found in an old pro-choice book:
These people are political activists, Fran
thought. Their work was critical to
protecting abortion rights, but how many
of them knew the reality of abortion, had
seen the reality of what it destroyed? Fran
felt like standing up and saying to those
arguing for unrestricted abortions, ―You
T
47
haven‘t seen the little feet. They look just
like the little feet pushpins the antis wear.‖
As a provider at Repro once said, if half the
pro-choice people saw the fetal remains of a
second-trimester abortion they would jump
the fence into the anti‘s arms.
141
Quotable Quote
―If you haven't seen what abortion does,
then you will never understand what
abortion actually is.‖
142
—Clenard
Howard
Childress,
Jr.,
Life
Education And Resource Network
The fetus a potential and part
of the mother‘s body?
Abortion is not murder, because a fetus is
not an
actual
human being—it is a
potential
human being, i.e.,
it is a part of the
woman.
143
—FAQ, Abortion is Pro-Life.com
o, let me get this straight — before
abortion a fetus is potential only and
part of the woman‘s body. At what
point does he separate out and become his
own body and at what point does he turn
from potential into person? Is it when a
woman changes her mind about abortion?
Or at some magical moment of pregnancy?
Or when the doctor catches her baby? Hey
now, that doesn‘t make sense! The fetus,
formed from a woman‘s and a man‘s DNA,
is, once formed, always his or her own
person.
Confessions from pro-choice
literature
―The fetus at twelve weeks is essentially
similar to a term infant, but in
miniature.‖
144
-Tucson Women‘s Center
At this point, if you still think that a
fetus is part of a woman‘s body, turn to
Reason #25:
Abortion is about a
woman‘s body, but….
It‘s undeniable from any scientific point
of view that the fetus is alive and exists. A
simple ultrasound will show you that. From
a DNA standpoint alone, it‘s proven he is
human in nature. Therefore, the fetus is an
existing being who is human. So, maybe
what they mean is, he isn‘t really a person.
We‘ll take this argument up in the next
reason.
Reason #10
―The unborn child is not
potential, but actual‖
S
48
Reason #11
A fetus is a human
and humans are
persons
Does abortion kill a person?
I should have known better. Pro-life
arguments are now based on scientific
evidence, and the pro-choice arguments are
not. That is a cultural, historical fact.
145
—Stanley Fish, writer
ince they can‘t deny that abortion
kills a fetus, pro-choicers have
reassured us that it‘s okay because
abortion does not kill one of us or ―a real
person.‖ But this is a philosophical
argument, not a scientific one.
The Supreme Court also used this
argument to legalize abortion. Yes, they
said we could ignore laws protecting the
right to life of every American, since they
weren‘t
certain
(and one
has
to be certain
in these things) that such laws protecting
the right of every ‗person‘ referred the
unborn as well as the born.
146
After all, they
defended, ―the Constitution does not define
‗person.‘‖
147
Incidentally, it didn‘t define
‗citizen‘ before slavery either, and that‘s the
reason the Supreme Court allowed
slavery.
148
This flawed reasoning has been repeated
by others. such as ethics professor Joseph
Fletcher, who claims that abortion ―is
not
killing because there is no person or human
life in an embryo.‖
149
Certainly if there is
no person there can be no killing. Yet if
there is no person, why is there a
measurable human heartbeat and visible
organs? What is meant by no human life is
uncertain, since any high school biology
book will show you a growing human
embryo
is
one
phase
of
human
development. (See
Reason #2
for more on
this.)
First of all, what is a
person?
Another quote from a pro-choice post
abortion counseling newsletter says, ―I
think fetal life is valuable, because I think
fetuses have the potential to become human
beings. But fetuses are not people. Women,
on the other hand, are people.‖
150
Again,
being human is what we are from the
beginning, so turn to
Reason #2
if you
disagree with that. Let‘s look at the most
often repeated argument: the fetus is not
equal to a person.
S
49
First of all, what is a person? Well, it
depends on your definition. Did you know
that common definitions of the word
qualify a fetus as a person! Two definitions
are ‗individual‘ and "human being." Well,
the fetus is an individual, separate being,
unique in DNA, sex, age and even
fingerprints. The fetus is a human being too
— the fetus is human and is a being, hence,
a human being.
Above all, remember that ‗person‘ is a
social definition — the word itself has no
meaning other than what we give it.
Whereas we can prove something is human
or not, by looking at their DNA, we cannot
prove that someone is a person. Person is a
subjective term and based on our personal
opinion.
Perhaps the real reason that some pro-
choicers say that the fetus is not a person is
that it is the
ONLY
thing they know to fall
back on! The U.S. Constitution guarantees
the right to life and liberty for all people.
The only way abortion is not human
murder is if the fetus is somehow not a
person.
The non-person argument is very
convenient, because it allows killing of
what would otherwise be a person. (If you
don‘t think abortion kills, turn to
Reason
#26: Pro-choicers admit abortion is killing
.
)
Why is this word ―person‖ so important?
In the Supreme Court's own admission, ―If
this suggestion of personhood is established,
[Roe]‘s case, of course, collapses, for the
fetus‘ right to life is then guaranteed
specifically by the Amendment.‖
151
Factoid
A woman in India recently won a court
case seeking an insurance claim for her
7 month unborn grandchild who was
killed in a car accident, along with her
son and daughter in law. The court
ruled that since the fetus was a living
human, he was also entitled to
insurance.
152
If she is not a person, what
kind of being is she?
et‘s start with a story to get across my
first point. You may remember the
Roe v. Wade
ruling that legalized
abortion. Here‘s Jane Roe (actually Norma
McCorvey is her real name) and she is
going through a difficult time.
After years working in the clinics her
pro-choice defenses are starting to break
down. She is starting to feel bad about
selling abortions, especially when she sees
visibly pregnant women arriving for
terminations. She feels like telling them
that they‘re in the wrong department for
baby clothes. So, anyhow, she wants to
break free of the industry, and begins to
L
50
sabotage her own job at the abortion clinic.
When one lady calls up to enquire about
an abortion for her 18-week pregnant
daughter, the woman asks, ―Is it really a
baby?‖ To which Norma replies, ―Ma‘am,
how many children have you had?‖
―Three,‖ she answers. ―What came out of
your body? Were they fish, or were they
little human babies?‖ The woman replies,
―That‘s preposterous. I had human babies,
of course.‖ So Norma says, ―Well, I think
you answered your own question.‖
153
How can a human being
not be a person?
Is it possible for your child to grow into
a fish? Could she? Might she? Of course
not! She is a human. A fetus is a person-in-
the-making, not a rabbit-in-the-making.
Since her parents are human beings, what
else could she be but a human being?
154
Indeed, the fetus is a baby person in the
same way that a puppy is a baby dog. She
has the same nature as us, just as a tadpole
has the same nature as a frog. Of course, a
tadpole is not a frog‘s final stage. It is just
one phase of the frog‘s existence. In any
case, it is a frog-in-the-making, not, for
example, a spider-in-the-making. My
question to you is, if you do not think the
fetus is a human being, then what kind of
being is she?
How could the fetus be anything else
but a human being? And yet, this is what
they think — ―A developing fetus is
biologically alive. It grows and changes
rapidly, but these characteristics do not
make it alive as a person.‖
155
What kind of a ridiculous argument is
that? Alive. Human DNA. Beating heart.
Detectable brainwaves. Grows and develops
into nothing but a newborn baby. Moves.
Sucks his thumb. Swallows. Blinks. Looks
like a baby early into pregnancy. But no,
he‘s not a person. How can a living human
not be a human being? How can a human
being not be a person? Go figure and see if
you can understand that way of thinking,
because I can‘t.
Inconsistency!
In the year 2000, the state of Kentucky
approved a bill to give unborn children
the recognition as a person from
conception. The bill gave parents the
right to sue if someone caused death to
their unborn child. Ironically, if they
caused their own child‘s death through
abortion, this was specifically excluded
for compensation!
156
Dr. Alfred Bongioanni, a professor of
51
pediatrics and obstetrics, testified to the
U.S. Senate judiciary subcommittee that ―I
am no more prepared to say that these early
stages [of development in the womb]
represent an incomplete human being than
I would be to say that the child prior to the
dramatic effects of puberty…is not a human
being.‖
157
A fetus is human from conception and
humans, in my book, are persons.
There are many life stages as a
―person‖
e all go through many levels of
existence or stages throughout
our
life.
These
include
―fetushood,‖
babyhood,
toddlerhood,
childhood and adulthood. Author Stephen
Schwartz spoke of the fetus like this: ―He is
hidden from view, he is smaller, more
dependent, more fragile. But he is a real
person, just like the born child. He is
simply at an earlier stage of his life and
development. If it is wrong to kill him later
(post-birth infanticide), it is equally wrong
earlier (prebirth infanticide).‖
158
Of course, I‘m not saying that a fetus has
the same physical or mental abilities as you
or me. He doesn‘t, but give him time, and
he will grow and show you all those skills
that you think a person ought to have.
Seriously, though, do abilities make you
―more human‖ instead of just a human? The
non-person label is actually a very
convenient one if you want to find a
justification for abortion. The Nazis and the
slave masters of the South would have
loved it. In fact, they did use similar
justification for their evil, but more on that
later.
Some people argue that the early
embryo is only an inch or two in size and
doesn‘t weigh much at all. That is true —
but gold is very valuable in such small
amounts, and are we not more precious
than gold? After all, does that mean that a
large man is more a person than, say, a tiny
girl? Or does it mean that an older person
has more rights than a younger person?
Likewise, are we non-important because of
our comparably miniscule size in relation to
the universe? I say, it‘s not the quantity but
the quality that counts.
If you don‘t fit my picture
then you must not be a real
person
Interviewer to abortionist
―Q: Does it bother you that a second
trimester fetus closely resembles a baby?
A: I really don‘t think about it…. It
lacks emotional development. It doesn't
have the mental capacity for self-
awareness.‖
159
—Abortionist Martin Haskell
W
52
ome so-called philosophers, such as
Peter Singer, like to come up with
certain qualities they
think
everyone
should possess; and if not, they say you
don‘t have a right to life.
These qualities include things such as
self-awareness, awareness of time and space
and rationality.
160
Yet this sets a dangerous
standard if you consider the groups of
people in our society that do not qualify
under that rule. An Alzheimer's patient
may not be aware of time and space. An
accident victim may be unconscious; and
while he might have self-awareness, we
certainly can‘t prove it. What about me on
a bad day — I might not qualify for
rationality either!
Why should a fetus have all the qualities
of an adult anyhow? Couldn‘t he be a ‗baby
person,‘ still developing those qualities?
Certainly he is not an adult person. He is a
baby, and as such, will act like one.
What‘s more, that kind of viewpoint
denies that God is our Creator and that our
worth comes from Him, not from some
type of social education or intellectual
prowess. As a believer in God, I would say
the chief quality for being a person is being
created a person by God. Since God created
all of us, I would say that any stage of
creation is a creation of God and something
sacred.
If you‘re wondering about the human
side, just how responsive, intelligent and
self-aware the unborn child is, check out
any of these reasons. After reading them
you might think the fetus has self-
awareness after all.
Reason #55: Your unborn child can feel,
taste, smell, hear and see
Reason #87: Your unborn baby is
intelligent
Some people think that your right to
live comes from your intellectual powers.
For example, ―The source of an individual's
right to life is one's nature as a rational
being.‖
161
If you believe that the fetus is not
a person, on the basis that she lacks certain
intellectual qualities, social skills or worldly
experience, then you must also defend
infanticide, because the human baby also
lacks those very same qualities. Even
supporters of this belief acknowledge this
fact.
162
The philosopher Albert Schweitzer
looked at things a bit differently than Peter
Singer. Instead of needing to prove that Dostları ilə paylaş: |