When Is a Baby Not a Baby?

Status
Not open for further replies.
The_Reginator

The_Reginator

Active member
Here’s a perspective I haven’t considered until now:
[
From When Is a Baby Not a Baby?

By Scott P. Richert, About.com Guide November 18, 2011](When Is Lent In This and Other Years?)
You see, Jennifer was once an atheist, and pro-choice, and, of course, she is a woman. In other words, she was precisely the sort of person that those who use these images claim they want to reach. And yet, as Jennifer writes:
Click to expand...
When I was pro-choice, images of abortion never bothered me in the slightest. Every now and then some protesters would stand in front of our high school parking lot and wave gruesome pictures of deceased babies at us as we drove in, and I never had a stronger reaction than to roll my eyes and mutter about how insane pro-lifers were. I had bought into the lie that unborn life is not fully human, and so, in my erroneous thinking, I wasn’t looking at pictures of human life. And I had another reaction as well, one that only entrenched me more deeply in my pro-abortion worldview. I thought:
Click to expand...
I don’t think pro-lifers think these fetuses are human either. If they did, they wouldn’t be waving these pictures everywhere.
Click to expand...
I’ve never been sure about how I feel about showing gruesome images to encourage women to keep their babies.
 
Just because one abortion opponent (a former pro-choicer) say that there is no effect of showing these pictures is not a complete rebuttal of their value.

Does she realize that many women who opt for abortion really don’t even know that the fetus visibly resembles a safely born baby? There is SO much ignorance out there – we should not avoid showing these pictures, because too many people need to see the connection between pre-born and post-born humanity. If it doesn’t work for Jennifer, oh well.

An analogy: For me, a picture of a sunny beach does not entice me to vacation at the location being advertised – because I love snow! Does that mean the tourism folks should stop showing sunny beaches on their billboards? Of course not; it’s gonna work for many people.
 
It doesn’t follow. If the PL crowd did not believe the fetus to be human, there would be no point in showing those images; it would be just needless hideousness.

As with images of war, execution, or starvation, these images have persuasive power precisely because they pertain to human beings.

ICXC NIKA
 
It is a very good point. It only started to bother me recently the idea of ancient corpses being put in museums. Because if I saw one of my relatives in a museum, I would be greatly disturbed because I have experienced that they are real people. It’s easy to forget that ancient humans were once real people too, and one has to answer the question of how much time has to pass before we can stop respecting someone’s remains.

In a similar manner, pictures of aborted fetuses are probably among the worst of pictures of the dead because of how heinous the crime is. Making those pictures not only public but common only helps people to forget that they were real people, just like bodies in a museum.
 
I still disagree, Equites. Our society legally states that a fetus is not a person. Thus, many people actually believe that … they fall for the Planned Parenthood lie that it’s just a blob of tissue. To verbally explain to these people that it’s really a human person often doesn’t sway them: “How do we know it’s human?” However, a picture often stuns them into rejecting society’s lie, and developing respect for life and horror at the truth of abortion.

You say that you would be greatly disturbed to see pictures of an ancient relative’s corpse because you “have experienced that they are real people.”

But that’s just it – today’s citizens haven’t yet experienced that a fetus is a real person!
 
The problem for Catholics is that the Church clearly teaches that organisms that look absolutely nothing like a human being (a zygote, for example) are in fact human beings. arguing on the basis of appearance if you are a Catholic is self-defeating, as the Church has no greater objection to late-term abortion than to the morning after pill.
 
NEVER

The zygot is fully human. It will never be a duck, a puppy, or an apple. It will always be human.

If we say it is OK to kill them because they are small, soon it will be OK to kill them for being the wrong color, sex, or … ?

Would it be OK to kill YOU because of your eye color, or height? Why Not?
Are you BETTER? :console:
 
Hokomai said:
The problem for Catholics is that the Church clearly teaches that organisms that look absolutely nothing like a human being (a zygote, for example) are in fact human beings. arguing on the basis of appearance if you are a Catholic is self-defeating, as the Church has no greater objection to late-term abortion than to the morning after pill.
Click to expand...
They are arguing on the base of appearance in that case because it’s showing what those “blobs of tissue” really look like. It isn’t the only reason for being against it, though. The main reason that they are human beings biologically is because they are unique individuals with their own DNA. Calling it a “zygote” or “embyro” or “fetus” or what have you, does not change its species.
 
Yes I understand the Church’s position. I am pointing out that the use of these images does not accurately convey the position, and even misrepresents it. The other issue, of course, is that the images are never presented in their actual size, and arguably the size, as well as the shape of a thing is used in recognising it as human, or not.
 
I agree that using the images isn’t the best way to protest this. 40 Days for Life changed over 700 mother’s minds this fall just by standing, praying, and talking to them peacefully outside abortion clinics. 🙂
 
I think such images have a place in the pro-life movement, I"ve seen them bring around even the staunchest pro-aborts. But that’s not to say it will work on every single one of them.

I don’t like calling the foetus a baby, because that’s misusing the correct terms and only seems to incite the pro-abortion person to claim that we’re ignorant and we’re almost affraid of science. Granted, if a woman wants to refer to her foetus as a baby, good for her.

Humanity isn’t determined by terminology. Zygote, embryo, foetus, baby, they are all humans beings just in different stages of development. Its why I’m sort of not really on par with the “personhood” movement, as the reality is, “person” is a purely legal term, and the law needs to catch up with science, not the other way round.

The law as it stands is not all humans are persons. It should be all humans regardless of location are persons.

As it stands, I think we can do a lot more with the non-aborted images of foetuses and embryos. Embryoscopy images for example make the same point without being as blunt as a sack of hammers.
 
Shock images are generally thought of as being not very effective in changing behaviour and it would be interesting to know if anyone in the pro-life movement had ever done any proper marketing research on the ‘bloody fetus’ technique. Anecdotes about a person here or there are not of much use. To promote any idea you need actual research. Has anything been published? Without wanting to draw a comparison between humans and animals, if you look at the publicity of the SPCAs around the world, they use images of cruelty to their own members to reinforce supporters’ committment, and use them only sparingly in specific targeted campaigns outside the committed group. Mostly for the general public they use pics of cute bunnies kittens and puppies who seem happy and well.
 
The Church doesn’t tell the people to use these images. The people choose them. My sign said; Abortion sucks - ADOPTION ROCKS!
 
Hokomai said:
The problem for Catholics is that the Church clearly teaches that organisms that look absolutely nothing like a human being (a zygote, for example) are in fact human beings. arguing on the basis of appearance if you are a Catholic is self-defeating, as the Church has no greater objection to late-term abortion than to the morning after pill.
Click to expand...
Huh? Such pictures don’t convey to people that the Church teaches that an unborn baby is human because it visibly looks like a born child. So I wasn’t arguing the intrinsic concept based on appearance … the appearance factor is merely an aid.

Here’s another analogy: If I ask you how to get to the post office in town, you may verbally tell me to turn right at the stop sign and then go one mile and turn left, then a quick right into the PO.

If I’m still unclear on the directions, you may draw me a map. Then I understand the directions. But the map itself doesn’t determine where the PO is; the map is just a visual aid that works better for certain people.
 
The best result we have ever had is offering a 4-D ultrasound FREE to an abortion-minded woman. When they see THEIR OWN BABY moving around, looking for all the world like a HUMAN, their defenses are blown and they almost instantly bond with their baby and change their minds about abortion.

Here’s the vehicle for saving babies here in Houston, the home of the largest abortion clinic in the western hemisphere and perhaps the world. The Knights of Columbus helped pay for the expensive 4-D ultrasound machine. The bus was donated and donations helped renovate it.

The Big Blue Bus

The very graphic images do have a place, I believe, and the GAP takes them to college campuses, where debates can actually have an effect. Outside an abortion clinic, people just shut down even more, and since the abortion providers are already lying about what we are doing there, it plays into those lies. “See, there they are, trying to HURT women by showing gory photos that AREN’T EVEN REAL!!”

Genocide Awareness Project

We have to work in different ways in order to be effective. The Operation Rescue days are long over.
 
surritter said:
Huh? Such pictures don’t convey to people that the Church teaches that an unborn baby is human because it visibly looks like a born child. So I wasn’t arguing the intrinsic concept based on appearance … the appearance factor is merely an aid.

Here’s another analogy: If I ask you how to get to the post office in town, you may verbally tell me to turn right at the stop sign and then go one mile and turn left, then a quick right into the PO.

If I’m still unclear on the directions, you may draw me a map. Then I understand the directions. But the map itself doesn’t determine where the PO is; the map is just a visual aid that works better for certain people.
Click to expand...
Well, yes. But it would not assist you in arguing that there are also Post Offices barely visible to the naked eye, if that were your belief.
 
The_Reginator said:
Here’s a perspective I haven’t considered until now:
[
From When Is a Baby Not a Baby?

By Scott P. Richert, About.com Guide November 18, 2011](When Is Lent In This and Other Years?)

I’ve never been sure about how I feel about showing gruesome images to encourage women to keep their babies.
Click to expand...
I didn’t look.

However, I think what Texas has done will go far. Texas requires a sonogram and the woman thinking of aborting has to view the sonogram of her baby which takes place after 24 hours have passed. In other words, the abortion cannot be same day and she has to return. That might be just the thing. Afterall, she is viewing her own growing baby.
 
Leegal said:
I didn’t look.

However, I think what Texas has done will go far. Texas requires a sonogram and the woman thinking of aborting has to view the sonogram of her baby which takes place after 24 hours have passed. In other words, the abortion cannot be same day and she has to return. That might be just the thing. Afterall, she is viewing her own growing baby.
Click to expand...
Well, actually, that law has been blocked by the courts for now. And the original law was that the US was required, but even that got reduced to being optional. It’s a start though. It does send a message to the abortion community that even if Roe v. Wade can’t be attacked directly, there are plenty of other ways we can tear down legalized abortion.

Ultrasound Law Blocked

The de-funding of Planned Parenthood is still on track however. THAT law is already having a huge negative effect on PP’s bottom line. Praise God!

13th Texas PP may close after defunding
 
TheRealJuliane said:
Well, actually, that law has been blocked by the courts for now. And the original law was that the US was required, but even that got reduced to being optional. It’s a start though. It does send a message to the abortion community that even if Roe v. Wade can’t be attacked directly, there are plenty of other ways we can tear down legalized abortion.

Ultrasound Law Blocked

The de-funding of Planned Parenthood is still on track however. THAT law is already having a huge negative effect on PP’s bottom line. Praise God!

13th Texas PP may close after defunding
Click to expand...
Well, sorry to see that the judge issued an injunction. The legislature passed the law and Gov. Perry signed it; it should be enough. If Sparks overturns the law, it’s like he’s “making” law. I’m sure this is not the last we will hear of it. Other states should consider following through. I say we keep whittling away until something takes hold.

So sorry to see this. Upon further research a similar law was to take place in NC in late October. That too has been stayed.

Praise God – they should lose funding.
 
The_Reginator said:
I’ve never been sure about how I feel about showing gruesome images to encourage women to keep their babies.
Click to expand...
The best way I have heard it explained is in respect to the Holocaust. When the Nazi’s were finally defeated and the concentration camps freed, the allies forced the populations near the concentration camps to go and see exactly what had been occurring right underneath their noses in those camps. It was disgusting to think that in some cases these people were living less than a mile away from where people were being chucked into furnaces and burned alive in mass. Could they not smell the stench? Did they never walk by and get a look at the camp? They made those people view the destruction in a way that would make sure they could no longer ignore what had been going on right underneath their noses to try and make sure nothing that horrible every was allowed to happen again.

Showing the gruesome images of abortions is done for the same reason. Don’t these people know what is going on in the abortion clinics in their city? I’m sure some of the people who got to see the mass graves and the distorted bodies of the Holocaust victims questioned whether they were really human too. Could anybody that looked like that really be human? The inability to recognize an aborted baby that was only a few weeks away from being “a cute born baby” just speaks towards the kind of mind hurdles that person has to jump through in order to justify their views on abortion.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top