Medical Publications, Abortionists and Pro-Choice Feminists Know

Part of the problem that the Pro-Abortion side has had all along the way is that it’s obvious to everyone that the baby in the womb is a baby.  They’ve attempted to force it to be called a fetus.  They try to reduce it to “a blob of cells”, “a product of conception”, or any other dehumanizing term they can in the hopes of making it easier for women to kill their babies.  You see, our sensibilities are such that our society doesn’t like to kill something– especially not a baby.  The very word connotes emotion, and it must be avoided at all costs.

A pro-choice editorial in California Medicine admitted as much:

Since the old ethic has not been fully displaced, it has been necessary to separate the idea of abortion from the idea of killing, which continues to be socially abhorrent.  The result has been a curious avoidance of the scientific fact, which everyone really knows, that human life begins at conception and is continuous whether intra- or extra-uterine until death¹

The author of the abortion how-to manual, Abortion Practice, said that in some second-trimester procedures, that the abortionists might have to wait to make certain “fetal death has occurred” before continuing with the rest of the abortion process²  Fetal death?  What died?  A blob of cells?  No, it’s obvious that it was a baby, a new human life, an individual apart from his mom, that died.

In the April 2000 issue of the Atlanta Journal Constitution, the following is noted:

To ease the strain [of the in utero spina bifida operations on a fetus] Dr. Bruner often talks to the unborn children while he works– to soothe them and keep them quiet, and to let them know what is going on.  Sometimes he conveys a message from the parents, “We love you.  We are trying our best to help.”

But Dr. Bruner also aborts children with spina bifida.  He’s paid to do it either way, but realizes the problem:

[This is] an increasingly difficult position to be in.  Because we are performing surgery to improve the lifestyle of fetuses who have spina bifida, it is difficult to justify an operation that could also take that life away.  As we walk through this mine field, society is going to have to take a good, hard look at itself, because it is untenable to hold both views.³

If it’s just a blob of cells, why do the surgery?  Because it’s not– it’s a baby, and everyone knows it.  Even pro-choice feminists.  In 1995, Naomi Wolf wrote a remarkable article for the New Republic.  In it, she said the following about the Pro-choice position:

Clinging to a rhetoric about abortion in which there is no life and no death, we entangle our beliefs in a series of self-delusions, fibs and evasions.  And we risk becoming precisely what our critics charge us with being: callous, selfish and casually destructive men and women who share a cheapened view of human life⁴

Notice the underlined words, and then it starts to make sense why those that argue the Pro-Abortion decision must change the topic, answer a different question, or do something to change the topic– it’s because at the heart of the movement is the desire to relabel things for selfish means.  There’s a deception going on about what is actually being done, because no one wants to say “Yep, I’m for killing babies.  I think babies should die in certain circumstances.”  If they’d do that, we’d be a whole lot further in the debate, and abortion would probably be outlawed.

Unless otherwise credited, facts taken from
Pro-Life Answers to Pro-Choice Arguments Expanded & Updated

1. “A New Ethic for Medicine and Society,” editorial, California Medicine (September 1970), 68. [↩]
2. Dr. Warren Hern, “Operative Procedures and Technique,” 154. [↩]
3. “Baby Samuel and Mother Doing Well after Fetal Surgery,” WorldNet Daily, 16, February 2000. [↩]
4. Naomi Wolf, “Our Bodies, Our Souls,” New Republic, 16 October 1995 http://www.epm.org/naomiwolf.html [↩]