The Daily Plunge

What differentiates a baby from a fetus? Medically, the definition is the period of time between eight weeks after conception and birth. However, people usually disregard the medical terminology in favor of how they prefer to view the fetus/baby, either as an inconvenience that can be discarded like any other medical waste, or as a human being with all the rights given other human beings who happened to have made it outside the womb.
Even pro-choicers carrying their own baby are not likely to refer to their baby as a fetus. A fetus is something other people carry around and can choose whether or not to abort: My baby is fully human, but others are not. Therefore, my baby is not a fetus… or, at least I’m not going to call it a fetus, because the term implies something less than human.
Therein lies the problem with and the hypocrisy of being pro-choice; you have to be willfully ignorant about what abortion truly entails – the painful dismemberment and death of a living thing that is certainly aware that something horrible is being done to it – while applying a different standard to your own children.
Barack Obama articulated this position best when he said it was above his “pay grade”. This is another way of saying, “I’m going to utterly close my eyes to the inhumanity and barbarism of this practice, and refuse to consider the implications of willfully killing what could very likely be considered a human being.” In short, it’s a cop-out.
If abortion is truly above your pay grade, wouldn’t it be far wiser to err on the side of protecting the baby in the womb? But Obama obviously doesn’t really believe the issue is above his pay grade, or anyone else’s pay grade. If he did, he wouldn’t support this wholesale slaughter.
Instead, Obama and anyone who’s pro-choice have decided that a baby still in the womb is less than human, much as slaveholders in early America decided that blacks were less than human. This justified, in the slaveholders’ minds, the inhumane practice of slavery, just as dehumanizing the “fetus” also justifies its killing.
The pro-choice movement is rooted philosophically in eugenics, a “progressive” movement popularized in the early 20th Century by the likes of Margaret Sanger, the founder of Planned Parenthood. Sanger and her ilk believed that inferiority in the human gene pool could be eradicated by sterilization, birth control and abortion.
The obvious problem with this philosophy is who chooses who lives and who dies. Unfortunately, people like Adolph Hitler embraced the philosophy and targeted “inferior” groups for extermination. Once again, these inferior groups were portrayed as less than human; Hitler was doing humanity a favor by eliminating them.
Ultimately, when you take a pro-choice position, you’re playing God. You’re saying, in effect, I am omniscient and can discern exactly when a human being actually becomes a human being. I would argue, on the other hand, that there is not one person on this earth who’s omniscient and thus qualified to render a death sentence on something that may be a human being.
As Sanger put it, “It is a vicious cycle; ignorance breeds poverty and poverty breeds ignorance. There is only one cure for both, and that is to stop breeding these things. Stop bringing to birth children whose inheritance cannot be one of health or intelligence. Stop bringing into the world children whose parents cannot provide for them. Herein lies the key of civilization. For upon the foundation of an enlightened and voluntary motherhood shall a future civilization emerge.”
Sounds like Utopia, but in Sanger’s and Planned Parenthood’s Utopian man-directed evolution, Utopia demands the extermination of others. Who those “others” are will be in the eye of the beholder; the beholder being the one who has the power to exterminate them.
Sanger’s philosophy and that of her intellectual progeny stands in utter contradistinction to the founding of America, in which “all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain inalienable rights.” In other words, the founders correctly believed that rights are endowed by the Creator, and not by the whims of man, who has proven to be a very poor arbiter of his fellow man’s rights.
This is an issue that deserves vigorous debate, yet the American people are never given the full story. Perhaps they don’t have the stomach for it. Who can blame them? It’s an extremely ugly practice when you get down to the nuts and bolts of how it works, and it gets uglier as a pregnancy progresses.
We’re told by our betters in the media that the debate should be superficial because it’s so “divisive”. Then we’re told that only the “fringe” – those outside the mainstream – are pro-life, thus the debate is already over. Yet poll after poll shows that abortion truly is a divisive topic that stands at about 50/50, thus it deserves more scrutiny than it gets now, particularly since the debate cuts to the very core of who we are.