Two recent news items are causing this. The first is the new pink/blue test that allows a pregnant woman to tell with 95% accuracy at 7 weeks gestation whether she is pregnant with a boy or girl. No one is buying that you need to know that early so you can catch all the sales at Babies R Us and stock up on pink/blue goodies. Most abortions occur in the first trimester when it is quicker and cheaper. Welcome sex selection abortion to America.
I wrote about the pro abortion crowd feeling discomfort about this here and here.
The second article causing further unease is about becoming pregnant via IVF and then reducing the pregnancy of twins to singleton as a purely elective choice having nothing to do with health issues of the fetus or mother. Slate expressed their "discomfort" pretty quickly.
“Jenny” chose to reduce one fetus because twins didn't fit into the life she'd pictured for herself. Her choice to end one of her pregnancies upsets me not just because of how rationally she made it, but because she crossed some sort of line. But here’s the kicker: Didn't I cross that line too? Both of us, “Jenny” and I, meddled with nature to get the families we so desperately wanted. So why is what I did OK in my eyes and what she did not? That’s a question I’m still grappling with."
A spate of articles followed the article from those who usually write in support of abortion saying that maybe we have crossed some moral line here.
Slate continued to agonize out loud about this. You can almost see the heart/mind change occurring in the comments of those who start off declaring their "pro choiceness "but then questioning where have we gone and what have we become?
"At its core, this is the most disconcerting thing about abortion: one person gets to decide whether another entity is a person or not. Seriously?"Even Slate's William Saletan, seems to transform before our eyes...
"Look up any abortion-related item in Jezebel, and you'll see the developing human referred to as a fetus or pregnancy. But when the same entity appears in a non-abortion item, it gets an upgrade. A blood test could help "women who are concerned that they may be carrying a child with Down's Syndrome." A TV character wonders whether she's "capable of carrying a child to term." Nuclear radiation in Japan "may put unborn children at risk."
This bifurcated mindset permeates pro-choice thinking. Embryos fertilized for procreation are embryos; embryos cloned for research are "activated eggs." A fetus you want is a baby; a fetus you don't want is a pregnancy. Under federal law, anyone who injures or kills a "child in utero" during a violent crime gets the same punishment as if he had injured or killed "the unborn child's mother," but no such penalty applies to "an abortion for which the consent of the pregnant woman … has been obtained."
Reduction destroys this distinction. It combines, in a single pregnancy, a wanted and an unwanted fetus. In the case of identical twins, even their genomes are indistinguishable. You can't pretend that one is precious and the other is just tissue. You're killing the same creature to which you're dedicating your life."
Secular Pro Life has an excellent post pointing out the conversion occurring before our eyes and asks a wonderful question of Slate.
"Mr. Saletan, did you become pro-life and I didn't notice? If you did, congratulations. If not, I'd love a follow-up article on how you're managing to maintain your convictions now that the "wall" of dehumanizing language has been breached."Many commenters say they can accept a abortion when the pregnancy was not planned but the idea of using IVF to conceive and then choosing which one gets to live seems beyond the pale.
An "ah ha" moment, conversion or have they jumped the shark. This might be our opportunity to
help them across this divide to a full understanding of why abortion is unacceptable....because it kills a defenseless innocent human being. What reason is acceptable for doing that?
Many of us in the pro life movement are converts some with a personal testimony or reason behind it. Here's to the honest questioning of what are we doing instead of accepting the callousness of our action as the norm.
1 comment:
Spot on, Sue!!
Prayers that that article continues to rock the nation!
Doubtful that was the intent of the author or her editor but the Lord can sure use it for His Glory!
Post a Comment