Media

The latest word game played by “pro-choice” activists

Oh yes. I really did just accuse “pro-choicers” of playing word games – quite commonly, in fact. I’ve already written about how the use of the term “pro-choice” is a word game in and of itself.

I’ve also explained how calling yourself “personally pro-life” doesn’t count. That boils down to just another word game, when you really take time to evaluate the facts.

We won’t even get into the example of Planned Parenthood clinics that tell women something like, “We don’t have any type of procedure where a woman would receive an injury.” Hmm…and that coming from clinics where women have been rushed away in ambulances or even killed. I don’t think I’ll call that a word game. I’ll call that what it is – downright lies.

So let’s get back to the word games.

How about the slogans so often thrown around by NARAL, Planned Parenthood, and company? Slogans like “reproductive justice” and “the war on women.” Let’s be honest: killing an innocent child for reasons of convenience and preference is the opposite of justice. Killing millions of unborn women every year through abortion is the real – and the largest – war on women that exists in our world today.

You’re probably plenty aware of how often the liberal, typically pro-abortion media refers to celebrities’ pregnant bellies as “baby bumps.” Not, of course, “fetus bumps.” No, no – that term (as well as “zygote” and the scientifically inaccurate “fertilized egg”) are reserved for discussions of pro-life legislators and pro-life ideas being voted on by the population. When it’s a political issue – anything that could actually serve to limit abortion – the media tells us we’re just dealing with impersonal “fetuses.” But when a celebrity many gush over is expecting, well, then it’s a baby, folks.

Oh, the word games.

Princess Kate (Photo credit: Tom Soper Photography on Flickr)

Now, the newest word game in this never-ending string of word games has emerged. Kate Middleton is expecting. But what, pray tell, is she expecting? A fetus? A zygote? A fertilized egg? A potential life? Nope. According to Jezebel (your source for nearly all things vehemently pro-abortion), Princess Kate is expecting a baby.

To be entirely fair, the author of Jezebel‘s article does use the word “fetus” twice to describe babies. Neither time is the author discussing Kate’s baby – just babies in general. Apparently general, common babies are “fetuses,” but Kate’s baby is, well, a baby. Odd how that can happen.

“Baby” is used seven times in the article to describe unborn babies, and even “person” is used once.

Riddle me this: how can abortion supporters so easily call a wanted, anticipated, and famous baby a baby but discuss aborted or almost aborted babies as the property of the mother, a parasite, a fertilized egg, fetus, collection of cells, potential life, or other such dehumanizing term? What gives?

Could it possibly be that, deep down, each of us inherently knows that an unborn child is indeed a child? We know the truth. We know that the unborn cry out to be defended, protected, and allowed to live. We all know that abortion is tragedy – not because it’s one in a line of difficult decisions, but because it ends the life of a new, unique, living individual.

If Kate Middleton were to have an abortion, would her baby suddenly transform into a non-baby on Jezebel and in the news at large? I doubt it. Folks, once a baby, always a baby. And a baby’s a baby no matter how small, to paraphrase Dr. Seuss. From the moment of fertilization, a baby exists, and that baby – no matter what happens to him or her – is a human being deserving of life.

And that’s true whether we’re talking about Princess Kate’s baby or your baby.

   
Live Action on Facebook
  • Julia

    So true. Have you ever been to a “contents of the uterus shower” or a “fetus shower”? me neither. :) Great post!

    • stop.

      You have never been to a “fetus shower” because you don’t throw a party before you terminate an unplanned pregnancy do you? You pro-life people need to stop thinking that every woman who gets an abortion does it with no cares or worries in the world, it isn’t just an everyday casual occurrence for women. Baby showers are for women going to accept their child into the world in a planned manner and to celebrate the life they are about to bring into the world, get a grip.

      • Kimberly Wedel

        You just confirmed what she said. In your mind it is only a baby if it is wanted. Should the mother not want to have the baby it suddenly stops being a baby and becomes a fetus. Sorry you can’t pick and choose terms on the whims of the mother.

      • http://www.facebook.com/melody.dybala Melody Dybala

        I hope that no one has ever tried to tell you that abortion was a casual or easy decision. I have never met a woman for whom that was the case and I have never met an active pro-lifer who was so stupid as to think it was. Of course it’s hard. It must be hellish to have to face that decision. We on the pro-life side cannot play off the pain of choosing an abortion by pretending women who abort their babies are heartless or flippant. We cannot be glib about this. Thank you for that reminder.

      • Julia

        Where did I say anything about women doing abortion without cares or worries?

        Does inside the uterus not count as “in this world”. If that’s not in this world, where is it?

        “You have never been to a “fetus shower” because you don’t throw a party before you terminate an unplanned pregnancy do you?”
        Exactly. going to be killed=fetus; not going to be killed (at least for now) = baby
        The point is that when pro-abortion people are talking about something other than abortion, then they call the child a baby, because he/she is wanted. If the the child going to be killed, however, then they decide to call the child scientific names to make it easier to justify killing the child.

        So now being wanted determines whether or not you are a person. Very unscientic. This is a very dangerous idea.

      • Sarah

        Hey “stop”, it’s irrelevant whether the person who chooses to kill someone does it with “care” and consideration. The child is already in the world. Your comment makes no sense at all. Why even come up with such an inane rebuttal?

      • Jenny

        OK…This made me giggle. I have never thought of it this way. No, I have never been to a “fetus” or “zygote” shower! Only BABY showers!!

    • http://www.facebook.com/melody.dybala Melody Dybala

      That’s because, by some pro-choice reasoning, personhood is granted by others who are already persons. The act of throwing the shower indicates that the fetus has been accepted and can, therefore, be called a baby. This is, of course, incorrect, but ignoring their logic will never help to convince anyone.

  • prolifist

    Solipsism, essentially.

    If the mother wants to carry it to term, it’s a baby. If the mother doesn’t want to carry it to term, it’s not a baby. Schrodinger’s fetus until she either has an abortion or gives birth.

    What if Kate learns her baby has a birth defect, and decides to get an abortion. Suddenly, all instances of the word “baby” are dropped down the memory hole by the likes of Jezebel. But then, suppose a second test proves the first test a false positive. Like magic, the word baby returns again.

    Women’s rights (circa 2012): the godlike power to confer or take away personhood.

    • http://www.facebook.com/jason.hunt.96 Jason Hunt

      Hey, I like your definition!

  • prairienymph

    Sigh. The sentence is unfinished. She is carrying a fetus or embryo depending on the developmental stage. She is expecting (to give birth to) a baby. The part in brackets is understood.

    • http://www.facebook.com/melody.dybala Melody Dybala

      Good point!

  • Aura Lea

    I’m delighted by the news and hope that the excitement will underscore in the minds of at least some people the reality that it’s a baby from conception.

    forthelifeofthenation.blogspot.com

  • Adam

    This contradiction has always irked me as well. I mean, do pro-choicers walk around telling their pregnant friends “Oh, congratulations on your clump of cells!!” No, they don’t. But then they try to say that it’s a baby if a woman wants the baby. Oh, that makes so much sense. Let’s put the power of deciding human life in the hand’s of women. Who’s hands will it fall into once women are deemed unsuitable to decide? I don’t put much faith in science, but in this case, science gets it right: human DNA = human life. The DNA never changes, from conception to death.

  • http://www.facebook.com/melody.dybala Melody Dybala

    Apparently, some folks are laboring under the misunderstanding that personhood is conferred on a being by other, already recognized persons. By their logic, personhood, and ‘baby-hood’, are granted when a particular, individual being is chosen for society by a member of society. Without societal acceptance, we are all worthless specimens of an animal without inherent dignity. Princess Kate’s offspring/baby is a prime example. The offspring is wanted as an heir by the royal family, is wanted by Princess Kate and her husband as any married couple would want a baby, and is wanted by the world as a novel addition to the celebrity news reel. Everybody, it seems wants this particular fetus. Therefore, this fetus has been granted personhood and can be called a baby.

    This doesn’t have to do with “from conception” or anything so scientific. It is based on the idea that personhood is something granted by others.

    • Jenny

      Yes, but why is Kate’s ability to name personhood, or that of the royal family any better than the average American woman. WE ALL confer personhood. The point is, pro-lifers confer it from conception and pro-abortionist pick an arbitrary date and say before that exact date, it is not a person, so they delay the pronouncement of personhood in a very real, but neagative way that lacks respect for the actual personhood of the child. And although a baby be in a zygote or embryo stage of development, it is still a baby. Being a toddler is a human developmental stage, but although we use the word toddler, we know it infers “human being.” But, when a pro-abortionist uses zygote or embryo, we know they are not acknowledging it as a baby, a life, a human. They de-humanize the child with these names and take away the imagery of a face and wiggly little legs and arms. In Nazi Germany, people were stripped naked, and shaved, and put on gunny sacks and called filthy names. The only way to justify murder, if you are the murderer, is to de-humanize the victim. When these terms are used by the pro-abortion movement, that is what they are doing, de-humanizing babies, living human beings. It’s no different that Nazi tactics to sanction and condone murder.

      • Julia

        “The only way to justify murder, if you are the murderer, is to de-humanize the victim” Great point.

        However, I disagree with what you said about pro-lifers “confering” personhood. If it is a human being than it is a person, preicisely because personhood is not conferred by other people, based on what you can do, how small you are, how old, what race, or what gender. None of these grant you personhood . Science clearly shows that there is a new, unique, human being from the moment of conception. So there is a person.
        It also doesn’t make sense to say something becomes a person at a particular point. Either it is always a person, or it is never will become a person.

        • Jenny

          Having studied social psychology and majoring in psychology with an emphasis in child development I can say, we ALL infer and appoint personhood. It varies from culture to culture. What I clearly said, that perhaps you missed, is that us pro-lifers confer personhood from conception because it is exactly that…a human, a person. Pro-abortionists use terms like zygote and embryo to dehumanize and remove personhood.

          • Blue Stater

            Whereas pro-lifers dehumanize and remove personhood from the mother by pretending her rights cease at the instant of conception.

          • Violet

            The “right” to kill their own species at will does not make someone a person, it makes them an animal. As a member of the human species, I do not have that “right”, and I find it viciously degrading that the law pretends I do.

          • Jenny

            Thanks Violet. Pro-lifers work very hard to help pregnant women in distress to keep their dignity and humanity intact. Through churches and non-profits we provide a myriad of supports for them from financial to psychological. The impact of abortion on a woman’s spiritual life, faith, and mental health is profound in a very negative way and reverberates throughout the rest of her life. You are fooling yourself if you think abortion ever makes a woman feel better. It has been statistically proven that it does not, and although some women report experiencing feelings of relief, they are in an extreme minority and can generally be classified as narcissistic. I’m a psychology student. I have studied this very issue. What you claim does not bear out statistically.

  • http://auradis.wordpress.com laura

    “Could it possibly be that, deep down, each of us inherently knows that an unborn child is indeed a child?” No.

    I appreciate my fellow Christians who follow their convictions of the sanctity of life-from-conception, etc., but your efforts would be better served helping the women and girls who turn to abortion as a last resort and prevent unwanted pregnancies in the first place.

    • Schnig

      We do Laura…we do it ALL. We run shelters for poor women in crisis pregnancy. We run free ultrasound clinics. We run the retreats for women suffering from the trauma of abortion. WE DO!! What, prey tell, do pro-choicers to for women EXCEPT kill their babies???

      • http://www.facebook.com/deanhsjones Dean Jones

        Support comprehensive sex education and promote the use of contraceptives.

        • Basset_Hound

          Support sexual responsibility, self restraint and self control through abstinence. That plan actually WORKS.

          • http://auradis.wordpress.com laura

            Um…have you seen the teenage birth rates in schools that teach abstinence-only sex ed? I don’t think so.

          • Basset_Hound

            Um…..have you seen what has happened to teenage birth rates (not to mention rates of STD infection) with OVER 30 YEARS of “comprehensive sex education”? I don’t think so.

      • http://auradis.wordpress.com laura

        Well, I’m sincerely glad to know that these services are provided for women in need.
        In response to your question, our goal as pro-choice people is to defend the rights of a woman’s autonomy (not to “kill babies”), just as anti-choice people are trying to defend the rights they believe a fetus should have. We’ll just have to agree to disagree in terms of which comes first.

        • http://twitter.com/CalFreiburger Calvin Freiburger

          But the choice to “kill babies” is, quite literally, what you think “a woman’s autonomy” should extend to.

          • http://auradis.wordpress.com laura

            If the “baby” is growing inside her, then yes, I do. Full stop.

          • http://twitter.com/CalFreiburger Calvin Freiburger

            Thank you for being so honest about your believe that some innocent human beings should be treated like property and executed for convenience.

        • sarah

          If you are going to call us “anti-choice”, I guess that means we can call you “pro-death”.
          Pro-life people don’t believe the rights of the fetus “young one” (btw, notice the use of the word, not baby because he/she is not wanted) are greater than the mothers. They believe they are the same, because they are all human beings, no matter their size, level of development, envirnoment, or level of dependancy.

    • Sarah

      laura, sorry, are you God? No? Then, I think I’ll let Him decide where our efforts are better served. I don’t think you really even understand prolifers at all if this is what you have to say – as if it’s impossible to walk and chew one’s gum at the same time.

    • Kristiburtonbrown

      Let’s not pretend that the reasons for believing that an unborn child is living, human, and deserving of protection are wholly religious. Sure, as a Christian, I believe that God commands us to stand up for the innocent who are being led to die; I believe that the Bible teaches that life begins at the beginning.

      But science, modern medicine, common sense, and basic human decency also lead to pro-life convictions. So let’s not dismiss the pro-life worldview as just a religious conviction that you can feel free to sidestep because you don’t religiously agree.

  • http://twitter.com/ProLifeTweeter ProLifeTweeter

    Have you watched this pro-life commercial? http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Uyb-9_1dD50

  • http://www.facebook.com/hannah.allman.90 Hannah Allman

    Excellent article! I’ve always wondered too why, when a murderer kills a pregnant women, he is charged with killing “the woman and her unborn child” (these exact words were recently used in then local newspaper). But when the child is unwanted, it’s not murder at all. it’s choice. It’s reproductive rights. It’s progress.

  • Sarah

    Kristi, to be fair, telling people that one is “expecting a baby” isn’t a word game, even coming from pro-aborts. The word “expecting” is referencing some future event. It’s not talking about the moral status of her child *now*; it’s a direct reference to what they believe it will be in the future.

    I agree that they play lots of “word games” and use many euphemisms and are in an epic state of denial. There is definite evil intent on the part of those who should know better. This is not an example of that, though.

    • Kristiburtonbrown

      Sarah, thanks for your comment, but if you actually go read the Jezebel article, you’ll see that the author is not simply talking about a future event where the royal baby will become a baby. The headline itself says “royal baby” talking about the present, not the birth months from now. The article is discussing Kate’s baby right now as a baby.

  • Pingback: The latest word game played by “pro-choice … – Live Action News | Moda&Notizie 2012

  • http://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=1469384591 John J. Jakubczyk

    of course deep down they all know that abortion kills a …(drum roll please).. .baby. . But they want control (power). It is the original sin. I want to do what i want to do. I do not want to listen to someone else. By the way, great comments.

    • Shem

      And the need to limit a woman’s say in whether a baby gets born doesn’t have anything to do with control, John? Perhaps birth control and abortion represent a loss of male control over procreation?

      • http://twitter.com/CalFreiburger Calvin Freiburger

        Those who can make arguments. Those who can’t invoke bigoted stereotypes of people they disagree with as domineering sexists.

      • Basset_Hound

        Are you kidding me. MANY women feel pressured into abortions by their boyfriends.

  • Shem

    From now on, I’ll call acorns oak trees. No more of these pro-abort word games for me!

    I guess word games are only acceptable if they involve guilt and intimidation, like accusing women of being “baby killers” and “murderers.”

    • Jordan

      I’d really like to know how you can justify comparing the ending of a human life to cutting down an oak tree.

      • Shem

        Not the point at all. I merely can’t justify making any sort of differentiation between an acorn and an oak tree anymore. I’m through with deceptive word games!

        • Women Deserve Better

          An acorn isn’t a fair comparison to an unborn human being. An acorn hasn’t taken root and started to grow – it doesn’t meet the scientific definition of life. The human fetus HAS started to grow and meets the scientific definition of life (cell generation + consumption).

          • Shem

            That so-called “acorn” contains the entire genetic material for an oak tree, doesn’t it? Then it’s an oak tree, according to pro-life logic.

            Why is it not okay to point out relevant differences between a gestating fetus and a child (such as the woman’s body), but it’s okay to point them out when it comes to an acorn and an oak tree? Could it be the people playing the rhetorical word games aren’t the “pro-aborts” after all?

          • Julia

            Acorn and tree are just the names we use for them at particular stages, because we use them differently. However they are all part of the oak speices.

            It is incorrect to call a fetus an infant, an adolescant, or an adult. All these names refer do different stages of the development of a human being. But baby is not an exact term, so calling it an unborn/preborn baby is not incorrect. Child just refers to a non-adult human being.

            However, even if try to dehumanize it by calling it a scientific name, a fetus ( latin for “young one”) is still just the name for that age of a human being.

            And everyone calls it a baby, when the child is wanted.

          • http://twitter.com/Astraspider Astraspider

            So, what you’re saying is, there are lots of name-games, that almost everything is a name-game, the entire @#$%ing language is a name-game, and bloviating about it is useless.

            Hey, we could be German, and try to slice and dice the language until we think we have everything categorized. Mmmmmmm, the schadenfreude over the torschlußpanik.

            Or we could be eskimos, who famously have a multitudinous variety of “snow” words.

            But the snow would still be snow. And the pro-snow eskimos will still gripe that the anti-snow eskimos are just playing a smarmy PR game to get more eskimos on their side.

          • http://www.facebook.com/kuzmabiz Faith Irene

            Words matter because people think in words. It is right to investigate the way words are used. People are being blinded to the reality of a baby with distinct DNA, capable of growth and metabolism, This human offspring is not a monkey but a human baby. For a fascinating look at showing human development from conception to birth, see http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fKyljukBE70

          • Kristiburtonbrown

            Yes, snow would still be snow. Just as a living human person is still a living human person no matter how many times they are dehumanized by those who want the right to kill them.

          • Shem

            Except when the living person is a sexually active female who gets pregnant. Then we can dehumanize, insult, and intimidate her to our hearts’ content!

          • Steph Anne Opolous

            I’m not sure how requesting that a woman not kill her unborn child is dehumanizing. She is not even expected to raise the child. Adoption is a beautiful and selfless act.

  • http://www.facebook.com/pmoynan Paul Moynan

    you’re right – language matters. We should be accurately terming those who favour killing infants as ‘Abortion-choice’. Pro-choice is not an accurate label.

  • Jenny

    This is one of my chief complaints about pro-abortionists. I’ve tried to pin them down. “When, EXACTLY, is it ok to take the life of an unborn child.” Their usual response? “I’m not going to argue semantics with you.” Because…if they give a point at which an abortion is ok, say 8-weeks, then at exactly 12:00 a.m. on the 8th week & 1-day, it is not ok. Doesn’t make sense. They know it doesn’t, yet, that is what our laws do: Define when murder is ok based on an arbitrarily picked date, which then infers one second after that time, it is no longer ok. And the other reason they don’t answer? Because if they do, then they are inferring it is a life. They have trapped themselves within their own argument of a woman’s “right to choose,” translated, and more accurately put, a woman’s right to commit murder. Eyup, they kind of suck at the whole word game thing – they trap themselves inside their own words and arguments all the time.

  • Jenny

    Final note from me today: Attention pro-abortionists. You will not find us pro-lifers voyeuristically spying on your websites that promote death. Why? Because we don’t agree with your viewpoint. I don’t waist my time commenting on pro-abortion articles and blogs because I don’t believe in your rhetoric. I maintain, that because you lack the faith in your own belief system that you are here trying to be convinced of such – that you lack faith in your own belief system. Therefore, you come on here to tell us how wrong and prejudiced we are. How mean we are to women suffering in trying to make this choice. Truth be told, if you really didn’t believe what we have to say, then what are you doing here? What do you care what our opinion is if you are so very sure that your opinion on the matter is the correct one? We can only assume you are undergoing some sort of conversion that will take time. So, keep posting, especially in response to this post, if only to prove my point – that YOU, (horror of horrors) actually believe a baby is a baby and not a zygote or embryo, from conception to birth. And by the way, your posting on sites and articles such as this is exactly how the Lord converted my heart. Be careful, because He WILL put a hurt on your stoic belief system.

    • Anne

      As a pro-lifer, I do have to speak up here… I peruse pro-choice forums as often as I do pro-life ones, because I find that knowing why pro-choice individuals make the decisions and arguments that they do, rather than merely dismissing their opinions as blind and egotistical, helps me formulate arguments that actually address their objections- which in turn leads to a far more productive discussion.

      People choose the decision or point of view that makes the most sense to them, based on the information that they have available. I mean, nobody wakes up in the morning and thinks, “Oh, I’m going to be stupid today.” We’ve all heard the typical pro-life/ pro-choice arguments, and we all know how productive they actually are- because neither of us are actually listening to the other. You know. “They’re just being stubborn and selfish” is what we each walk away thinking. It goes for both sides. So please… listen more, and make an effort to understand.

      • Jenny

        As an ex pro abortionist, I can say I am well versed in the rhetoric. You act as if there is gray area here. There is not. They believe a woman has the right to murder her unborn child if she so chooses. I happen to think this wrong because…it is murder. There is no point in my “listening” as you propose because their ideologies (again, I am more than familiar with their rhetoric) are disgusting and abhorrent. Did you see the recent article on babies in Canada who are being aborted, born breathing, and left naked on a table to slowly suffocate and die. What EXACTLY is it you think I need to hear from such people? Why would I fowl my brain that way? If there is something about the other side I need to know, I will read an article to get information. I keep up on what Planned Parenthood is saying and doing. You know, the pro-murder organization that was founded on the premise of eugenics by Margaret Sanger. You see, this is a tib-bit of history most people don’t know. I have studied the history of forced abortion and sterilization in this country and seen how minorities (Native American in particular) were attacked by our government. I am a well educated well read woman working on my 2nd degree and subsequent masters in child psychology and development. And I know an incredible amount about how babies develop in the womb. I do not troll pro-murder websites because they are detestable. If you think “listening” is going to work, what you will hear is people trying to convince you of why they are right and we are wrong. It IS a wrong/right – black/white issue. There is NOTHING to discuss. I don’t think they are blind and egotistical. I think they are pro-murder of the most innocent form of life.

    • Guest

      Besides, name-calling? Speaking as a college student, man… that was soo high school. [....Not to mention us being pro-life. I mean... I'm pretty sure that tossing vitriol at another human being- offensive though they seem- is kind of counter to the whole "respect human dignity" idea. By our ideals, people should receive respect whether or not they deserve it...]

  • http://www.facebook.com/people/Dan-L-Kennedy/682808006 Dan L Kennedy

    They regularly violate the Principle of Noncontradiction: A real being cannot both be and not be the same thing, in the same respect, at the same place and time.

    • Shem

      Whereas pro-lifers commit the fallacy of Equivocation: because expectant parents call a gestating fetus a “baby” (just using the term to apply in a general way to offspring), then it follows that terminating a pregnancy at nine weeks must be the same as murdering an infant, since we refer to an infant as a “baby” too.

      This tactic makes up in intimidation value what it lacks in linguistic accuracy.

      • http://twitter.com/CalFreiburger Calvin Freiburger

        “Expecting parents call a gestating fetus a ‘baby.’”

        Uh, that’s the entirety of why we believe what we do? Really? Because of what “expecting parents call” him or her? It’s all about the name, and nothing to do with our understandings of biology and human rights?

        Gee, it’s almost as if you’re trying to pull a logical fast one of your own, by fixating on a name rather than the nature of what that name references.

      • http://www.facebook.com/people/Dan-L-Kennedy/682808006 Dan L Kennedy

        In this case, Shem, baby means a unique, individual human being. Not a potential human being, but a human being with potential. To deny the obvious meaning is to commit the fallacy of equivocation LOL – nice self-refuting argument! Your sophistry impedes your perception, but it doesn’t change the truth.

        • Shem

          Dan, the whole truth in this matter is that a fetus is developing inside a woman’s body, which makes it unlike any other form of life we currently call a human being. Not to hear pro-lifers tell it, but that complicates the situation by forcing reasonable people to balance the rights of a fetus against the rights of an adult woman. As the father of two, I can’t make decisions like that for anyone else.

          • http://www.facebook.com/people/Dan-L-Kennedy/682808006 Dan L Kennedy

            Shem, degree of development doesn’t change the nature of the being. Do your 2 kids have less of a right to life because the are not “adult woman”? Secondly, the geography of development i.e. inside a woman or outside as in puberty would simply be an arbitrary measure. Babies born weeks prematurely would have died two decades ago, but now they can survive because of advances in medical technology. Geography in this case is simply a measure of technology, not of human rights.

          • Steph Anne Opolous

            Imagine looking at your own children and their unique qualities and personalities, and imagine that their mother -in your belief- should have had the right to destroy them before they even had a chance at life.

      • Steph Anne Opolous

        Ask a couple who have lost their baby early in pregnancy what they call their child. Not a fetus or a zygote, that’s for sure.

    • http://twitter.com/Astraspider Astraspider

      Hey! Don’t tell Schrödinger’s cat that!

  • kyuki yoshida

    A fertilized egg is not a baby or even a fetus, it is in fact, a clump of cells, no part of the baby has formed whatsoever besides some of the cells and dna to create said baby. Until it has a brain, heartbeat, and can feel pain it’s not a baby, and can’t even be considered a living thing.

    • Kristiburtonbrown

      Whoa…let’s hold on a minute here. First, “fertilized egg” isn’t scientifically accurate. Blastocyst and zygote are the early accurate terms for a developing human. And under your reasoning, a child and an adolescent aren’t adults – but that doesn’t make them not human, not living, and not persons.

      I’m also not sure why you’re even talking about “fertilized eggs”. Kate Middleton is reportedly 12 weeks pregnant. At eight weeks, all the organs are in place, except the lungs. By 11-12 weeks, all the organs and body systems are present, and basically all the baby needs to do is grow.

      If you use a brain, heartbeat, and pain, as the measure of whether or not a human is living, I have a few questions.

      1) Does a human have to have all three to be alive? Or just one or two? (Heartbeat is present at 21 days after conception; brain waves can be measured at 6 weeks; and pain is present anywhere from 5.5-20 weeks, depending on which study you subscribe to.) So, arguably, all three of those things are present in an unborn child before many abortions are done – and sometimes before a woman even knows she’s pregnant.

      2) What about the born humans who have a condition/disease in which they are unable to feel pain? Are they not living?

      3) What about people who are receiving CPR, or having their heart artificially beat for them? Are they not living either?

      4) Finally, it’s clear that an unborn baby – at every stage, even the earliest stages – is growing. It’s also clear that the baby is 100% human (not sure what else humans could create). So how is a growing human not alive?

      • Shem

        Kristi, isn’t this unborn baby gestating inside someone else’s body?

        So wouldn’t we expect this other person —a living human being who’s deserving of freedom and dignity too— to want to have a say as to what happens inside her body?

        • Steph Anne Opolous

          Isn’t having her say as to what happens inside her body what got her pregnant to begin with? The baby didn’t choose to be placed there, yet he or she pays the price. We as women have the freedom to not have sex, and that is actually quite dignified.

  • Josephine

    There’s a saying I’ve seen in one of Glenn Beck’s books: “Control the language, control the debate.”

  • Evangeline

    You’ve done it again, what a wonderful article, Kristi! Thank you for your down-to-earth honesty about these word games that pro-abortionists continue to play. I appreciate every single one of your articles. Keep up the great work!