Funny, but you never hear expectant mothers say, “I’m having a fetus.” Or, “My fetus is kicking.” Nor do pregnant women talk about hoping that the “glob of cells” they’re carrying will be a boy or a girl.
Rather, they understand that they are having a child. Not a pig or a frog or a bird, but a child.
This truth escapes the pro-abortion crowd. Abortion activists will often claim that the object of the pregnancy is a fetus, not a baby. Fetus is a medical term. People simply regard it as an unborn baby.
The expression “with child” arose for a reason. The expectant mother is “with” something, and that something is a “child.” (Notice the word “with” – the child is with the mother, not part of the mother.)
People know the truth, yet the abortion industry – abortionists, feminists, many academics, public education, and a compliant media, among others – continues with its propaganda to indoctrinate Americans. But it just does not work because the truth is too obvious.
The Big Lie: the unborn baby is not human and has no human rights. (Unless, that is, the mother wants the unborn baby, then it is human.)
The cognitive dissonance: abortionists can kill the unborn as if it is not human, but someone causing the death of the unborn can be charged with murder.
Having “a bun in the oven” is a euphemism for being pregnant.
Bakers place buns in the oven to bake them. They are called buns when they go in and they are called buns when they come out. They will never be turnips or pumpkin pie or pot roast. They will always be buns. Period.
Likewise, an unborn child will always be human – from conception to birth to death in old age. Human.
An acorn is not an oak tree, but it is a nascent oak tree. You might say that an acorn contains an oak tree within itself. Acorns come from oak trees and become oak trees. Acorns and oak trees share the same genetic material, the same essential DNA.
An acorn will never be a deer or a dolphin or a dog.
No one rationally disputes this. Science and biology prove this. Just as science and biology prove that pregnant women are pregnant with human beings.
Thus, the unborn child will always be born a human and not a rodent or a cow or a pig.
“A human being is an organism of the species homo sapiens. Using this definition, a ‘fertilized egg’ (a.k.a. zygote) is indeed a human being. This is basic biology.”
“The zygote/embryo is a whole distinct human organism – that is, a human being, a self-developing member of the species Homo sapiens – at a very early stage of life.”
As noted in National Review: “Science has very good answers as to what is in the womb at conception. The cells in question are living cells, not dead ones. They are human cells, not rutabaga cells or bullfrog cells or Lactobacillus bulgaricus cells. They are genetically distinct from the cells of the mother’s body, as the DNA will confirm. They form an organism of the species Homo sapiens, not a tumor, an organ, an amputated limb, or a fingernail clipping. Science is reasonably clear about what this is: a genetically distinct living human organism at his or her earliest stage of development.”
The English language is replete with words, phrases, colloquialisms, and idiomatic expressions which all point to the realities people regularly experience. For instance,
A pregnant pause “is a technique of comic timing used to accentuate a comedy element, where the comic pauses at the end of a phrase to build up suspense. It’s often used at the end of a comically awkward statement or in the silence after a seemingly non-comic phrase to build up a comeback.”
It is a “pause that gives the impression that it will be followed by something significant.” In the case of humor, that something significant is a punchline. In the case of people, it is a human birth. Pregnancy normally leads to birth. The birth of a human being.
Comedians understand it. Most people get it. The concept itself is far from revolutionary. Yet, abortion proponents either cannot grasp it or they are in denial over a reality which refutes their worldview and ideology.
By the way, the organization, Pregnant Pause, provides a wealth of pro-life information.
March for Life
Today marks the 42nd 1st anniversary of Roe v. Wade. Today is also the 41st annual March for Life, the largest pro-life gathering in the world! For those interested in supporting the pro-life movement, you might consider contacting that organization (or any number of other groups).
Pro-lifers come in all shapes and sizes. They defend the unborn, support those who are pregnant, provide counseling for those who have aborted their children, help with adoption of the newly born, assist those who have babies who have survived an abortion, address the political and legal aspects surrounding pro-life issues, and look to the spiritual well-being of all concerned.
Facebook Chat re: “Reproductive Rights”
I recently had a Facebook chat with an abortion advocate. His reasoning and rationale are noteworthy. You will see him reframe the issue (from babies, to women), conflate issues (humans, animals), dehumanize the unborn (developing zygote), rationalized partial-birth abortion, and accused me of having contempt for women and being pro-rapist (for supporting the children of rape).
I initiated the dialogue by questioning the very term “reproductive rights.” [Emphasis added throughout.]
BW: “Reproductive rights?” Don’t you mean “non-reproductive rights?” Abortion kills what is being reproduced.
DS: I think “reproductive rights” refers to women’s rights to control their own reproduction, as opposed to the government or a church or another outside group.
BW: Does the baby have a say in whether or not he or she can be reproduced? Aren’t “reproductive rights” actually a death sentence on the baby?
DS: Babies are not aborted; fetuses are, as though it were an induced miscarriage. If life began at conception, we would all celebrate our conception days, not our birthdays.
BW: Is a fetus human? Or something non-human? If the former, it has a right to life.
DS: Your error, and the error of the right-to-lifers generally, is to think the abortion debate is about babies. It is not, it is about women and how to control their behavior and reduce their autonomy. And by the way, as an animal owner, I question your assumption that they don’t have a right to life as well.
BW: If animals have a right to life, why not fetuses?
DS: Animals have been born; they are not developing zygotes.
BW: Is a fetus less human because it is smaller in size? Does a fetus deserve fewer rights because it can’t speak? A fetus has all the body parts of a baby and is clearly human. Why is it not entitled to human rights?
Do you consider partial-birth abortion a legitimate “reproductive right?”
DS: In Roe v. Wade, the Supreme Court used “viability” as the standard of when a fetus attains human rights, and therefore set six months as a reasonable standard. There is no such medical term as “partial birth abortion”; this was made up by anti-abortion propagandists.
BW: “Partial-birth abortion” is a DESCRIPTIVE term which accurately describes a “medical” procedure in which the fetus is partially born but then aborted. It is alive as it is being delivered and then killed before delivery is complete.
DS: This is extremely rare in the literature, has accompanying medical issues which you are not mentioning, and serves mainly as a scare tactic by anti-abortion activists.
BW: Medical science has tremendously advanced since 1973. The time frame for viability now would be significantly different. Still, many fetuses are aborted even after the Supreme Court’s arbitrary six-month cut-off.
There are absolutely NO – repeat NO – medical reasons for performing a partial-birth abortion. None whatsoever. In fact, performing one extends the birthing process.
DS: No, not many. One problem is that all pregnancies are different and time-dating them, especially by the woman involved, is an imprecise science. Some women don’t even realize they are pregnant until they are pretty far along.
Partial birth abortions, whatever they may be, are a red herring. Anti-abortionists oppose ALL abortions, at whatever stage, even in cases of rape, incest, or to save the life of the mother, demonstrating that they are anti-women more than pro-life.
BW: Abortionists literally PREVENT the birth from being completed to kill the baby (which is almost completely out at that point). No medical reasons for a partial-birth abortion. None.
DS: Most abortion clinics do not perform the procedure beyond the point of viability. You’re obsessing over a red herring.
BW: So, if the mother doesn’t know until the eighth month, it’s OK. Tough luck, little one, but you gotta die?
Do you approve of partial-birth abortion? Do you consider it a legitimate procedure?
DS: I won’t be drawn into a nonsensical argument over a procedure so rare it is statistically non-existent, if you will not respond to the anti-woman aspect of the anti-abortion movement. Do you make an exception for rape, incest, or to save the life of the mother, or don’t you?
BW: Only exception – save the life of the mother. Not “health” of the mother, but “life” of the mother.
PBA is not a nonsensical argument because it does happen. Do you or do you not approve?
DS: So a woman has to carry the baby fathered by her rapist or abuser to term. A pro-rapist and pro-molester argument. You should be proud.
BW: You would kill an innocent life? And further victimize the mother?
How is it pro-rapist and pro-molester? What the #### are you talking about? It is pro-LIFE!
DS: And why is health of the mother insufficient to justify a medical procedure; why aren’t women to be allowed to care for their own health as all the rest of us do? Deal with your contempt for women.
BW: Because having a headache would constitute a “health” issue.
What contempt [for women]? Half of the babies aborted are female!
A disproportionate number of babies aborted are black. Are you anti-black? Are you a racist?
I would ask you to stop the ad hominem attacks, but, of course, abortion itself is ad hominem.
DS: Convicted rapists have actually sued women for aborting the babies resultant from their assaults; they think they should have been consulted. Do you? Your contempt results from your unwillingness to concede to women the moral autonomy to make their own decisions about reproduction and plan their own families. I won’t be distracted from the issues of misogyny by more of your canards about race.
If the fetuses are black, then their mothers by implication are black too. Are you racist for denying them the right to make this decision?
BW: Are you racist for defending eugenics?
DS declined to respond to my question.