Commentaries
|
Photoshopping a Fetus Denying the ObviousBy: Eric Metaxas|Published: July 3, 2012 7:09 AM Rating: 5.00 Topics: Biotechnology, Life Issues There is one thing that pro-abortion advocates must never admit, no matter what is staring them right in the face. Stay tuned to BreakPoint. Listen Now | Download
It’s hard not to blame the influence of technology for the seemingly inexorable spread of the culture of death. Accurate and safe prenatal testing has led to the destruction of an estimated 90 percent of unborn children diagnosed with Down syndrome. Sonograms reveal that the sex of yet-to-be-born children has led to a “small-h” holocaust against girls in places such as China and India, where boys are often preferred. But technology can also be a huge advantage in the fight to recognize and protect the sanctity of human life—every human life. For example, pro-lifers have worked diligently to place sonogram machines into pregnancy care clinics, and the presence of these high-tech wonders—which clearly show the humanity of the fetus—has no doubt contributed mightily to a substantial drop in the abortion rate, as well as a marked increase in the percentage of Americans who consider themselves to be pro-life. It seems that our technological prowess doesn’t so much corrupt our hearts as reveal what’s in them. You can see this principle in action in a recent article in Slate magazine. The writer, Allison Benedikt, recounts “the latest in baby-making fads,” such as midwives and birth photographers. But what really gets her attention: “Pregnant woman are Photoshopping sonograms onto their naked stomach glamour-shots.” Imagine Demi Moore’s famous Vanity Fair cover pose with a representation of the growing human life inside her for all to see. For Benedikt, such uses of technology are troubling—even “bad for women.” She writes, “… the more we treat fetuses like people—including them in our family photo shoots, tagging them on our Facebook walls, giving them their own Twitter accounts—the harder it will be to deny that they are people when the next, say, personhood amendment comes up, with legislators and activists arguing that ‘the unborn child’ inside a pregnant woman’s womb should have the same rights as the living among us.” In other words, don’t believe what your lying eyes tell you about fetuses, because if we start viewing them as people, those mean ol’ anti-choicers might start demanding that we treat them that way. This approach to the unborn—“nothing to see here, folks, just move along”—says so much about the pro-choice worldview. But it gets worse. Writing about the recent congressional debate over sex-selection abortion, instead of bemoaning the elimination of millions of future women, Benedikt urges pro-choicers to embrace sex-selection abortion. She writes: “No matter how many ultrasound pics get posted to Facebook, these are fetuses with female genitals or male genitals—not little girls and little boys. If pro-choicers object to aborting because of the sex of the fetus, aren’t we then saying that abortion is ‘murdering’ girls? . . . That is not the case to make if your goal is to protect abortion rights. Gulp for a second if you must, then get over it.” Wow! Chuck Colson always said that “worldview matters.” And to judge the validity of any worldview, follow it to its logical conclusion. Thanks to Ms. Benedikt and those like her, the pro-choice worldview’s logical conclusion is there for all to see: In order to maintain the supreme good of a woman’s choice, pro-choicers must always and everywhere deny the humanity of the unborn child. Even when their own eyes tell them otherwise. If you’ve got thoughts, please go to BreakPoint.org, click on this commentary, and leave us a comment.Further Reading and Information
Photoshopping a Fetus Onto Your Pregnant Stomach Isn’t Just Tacky, It’s Bad for Women Telling the World Its Own Story Why Pro-Choicers Should Be OK With Sex-Selection Abortions
|












Comments:
I read her poorly reasoned article...and it took me a reread (and a look at the context) to figure out...she is actually NOT a prolife person.
Perhaps her recorded struggles reflect a deeper struggle going on...inside herself!
And the MANY comments show that lots of XX chromosome people i.e....women...think quite differently than she does!
...And...soon we will not need to "photoshop" the fetus...as Ultrasound technology is showing a Better and Clearer picture of Unborn BAby all the time...
(Here I need to go & wake up my former fetus...whom I first saw as a very fuzzy but very active 17 weeks from conception unborn baby...over 21 years ago!!!)
We continue to call pro-abortionists "pro-choicers." Yet, many who claim to be pro-choice are violently opposed to giving women a real choice. They manipulate, deceive, conceal and do everything possible to increase abortion. It is a personal agenda to validate abortion rather than to present options and allow freedom of choice. Just by continuing to use that term, we influence people. Who isn't in favor of giving people free choice?
This article makes it clear that Ms. Benedikt wants to withhold information that might influence someone to make a choice that goes against her bias. I bristle at the term "pro-choice" for her and for those who share her worldview.
1) DNA always is of a living something (in this case a human).
2) A DNA sequence is specific to a particular person.
It is an accepted fact that DNA information is of living things. Only living things have DNA in a pattern specific to the species.
Second- A child’s DNA sequence is even more specific, it is not the same as his mother’s any more than it is the same as the father’s. If it was the same as his mother’s he could only be a she & she would be what would appear to be a clone. Being in need of care does not make us less human either. Now with ultra sound imaging (sonograms), it is reasonable to see this person is alive, has a heartbeat, he requires food, oxygen and has feelings.
Again if we look at what science can tell us about identity. The fairly recent discoveries as to the role DNA plays in living things has led to identity testing and this has revolutionised questions of identity in our court cases. We have accepted the validity of individuals having a particular DNA sequence apart from any other person AND we as individuals have a specific sequence that has been particular to our bodies since conception. I make this point because it has been the pro choice argument that it is the right of a woman to do what she wants with her own body but we see with this scientific knowledge that it is not her own body at all, it is another’s. This “other’s” has a specific DNA structure that will identify him/her as a person from conception till death.
The baby does have constitutional rights, DNA says that it is a person; an alive, specific person.
Paul Schnell