Has no member of NARAL ever seen an ultrasound?

FFS, you Ghouls:

Stacy McCain as already asked the relevant philosophical question:

Accepting for the sake of argument that humans are not continuously human from conception on through death, how DOES the fetus transition from non-human to human state? What magical chrysalis occurs, when the embryo goes from non-human to human status?

I’m not holding my breath for an answer. But I would like to wonder if none of these people have ever actually seen what a human fetus is capable of doing, even when very small? I was present at both the ultrasounds for my daughters, and I saw them wiggling and thumb-sucking and responding to stimuli. And they responded to stimuli from outside the womb, too. It’s like they’re ALIVE or something.

To say nothing of this, even more obvious response:


Kermit Gosnell and the Holy of Holies

Abortion is not new. It did not spring fully-formed from the head of the Supreme Court in 1973. It is as old as civilization itself, and the controversy surrounding it is just as old:

“Why sow where the ground makes it its care to destroy the fruit? Where there are many efforts at abortion? Where there is murder before the birth? For even the harlot thou dost not let continue a mere harlot, but makest her a murderess also. You see how drunkenness leads to whoredom, whoredom to adultery, adultery to murder; or rather to a something even worse than murder. For I have no name to give it, since it does not take off the thing born, but prevent its being born. Why then dost thou abuse the gift of God, and fight with His laws, and follow after what is a curse as if a blessing, and make the chamber of procreation a chamber for murder, and arm the woman that was given for childbearing unto slaughter?”

That’s St. John Chrysostom, one of the Doctors of the Church, writing in the 4th century AD, damning men for seducing women and abandoning them, forcing abortion upon them (just in case you thought that those old unmarried men had no idea what made babies happen). This argument has been going on for a very long time, and it’s going to keep going on. Nothing that has happened recently is going to change that.

It’s safe to say that the dam is bursting on the Kermit Gosnell story, as it inevitably must have. Nothing as lurid and horrifying as the prosecution alleges could have truly failed to escape the public consciousness, no matter how much certain circles would have preferred it.

I am late to this story, not because I didn’t know about it, and not because I haven’t been reading up on it (Stacy McCain in particular has been all over it from the beginning). I haven’t wanted to write about this for the same reason Megan McArdle didn’t: sheer revulsion and horror. What this bland, grandfatherly-looking man of 72 – a poster-boy for “the banality of evil” if ever one existed – created in his Philadelphia clinic amounts to an infant-sized Auschwitz, a crime against humanity. And even generically pro-life people like myself dont’ want to realize that it exists, for to do so would be to violate a polite taboo.

In ancient Israel, the sanctorum at the center of the Temple in Jerusalem was called the Holy of Holies. As the home of the Ark of the Covenant, it made incarnate the presence of God in Israel. Only one man – the High Priest – on only one day – Yom Kippur, the Day of Atonement – could ever enter the Holy of Holies. Anyone else (such as the sons of Aaron in Leviticus 10) who entered died. The presence of God was not for the unworthy to look upon.

If modern feminism’s obsession with “reproductive freedom” has something of a religious character (and there are those that say so), then the birth control pill is its Eucharist, and abortion its Holy of Holies. It is Between a Woman and Her Doctor: mere mortals are not supposed to know what goes on. When anti-abortion activists take to the streets with pictures of mutilated fetuses, we are angry at the makers of the pictures, not the makers of the content. This is true even of pro-life people, such as myself. We don’t want to see this. We don’t want to know. Witness Roger Simon:

The trial of Dr. Gosnell is a potential time bomb exploding in the conventional liberal narrative on abortion itself.  This is about the A-word.

No feeling human being can read this story or watch it on TV without being confronted with the obvious conclusion — like it or not — that abortion is murder.

It may be murder with extenuating circumstances (rape, survival of the mother, etc.) but it is murder nonetheless.  Dr. Gosnell — monster though he is — has accidentally shoved that uncomfortable truth in our faces.

Pushing this case front and center in the media would change the national narrative on this subject.  (The current stats are here, via Rasmussen.)

I can give you two guinea pigs to prove this point — my wife Sheryl and me.  We were in the kitchen last night, preparing dinner, when we saw a short report of this story on the countertop TV.

Both lifelong “pro-choice” people, after watching only seconds, we embarked in an immediate discussion of whether it was time to reconsider that view.  (Didn’t human life really begin at the moment of conception?  What other time?) Neither of us was comfortable as a “pro-choice” advocate in the face of these horrifying revelations.  How could we be?

Yes, Dr. Gosnell was exceptional (thank God for that!), but a dead fetus was a dead fetus, even if incinerated in some supposedly humane fashion rather than left crying out in blind agony on the operating room floor, as was reportedly the case with one of Gosnell’s victims. I say blind because this second-trimester fetus did not yet have fully formed eyes. (Think about that one.)

So I don’t think I’m “pro-choice” anymore, but I’m not really “pro-life” either.  I would feel like a hypocrite. I don’t want to pretend to ideals I have serious doubts I would be able to uphold in a real-world situation.  If a woman in my family, or a close friend, were (Heaven forbid) impregnated through rape, I would undoubtedly support her right to abortion.  I might even advocate it.  I also have no idea how I would react if confronted by having to make a choice between the life of a fetus and his/her mother.  Just the thought makes my head spin.

And there it is. We are compromised. We see murder and we pretend not to. We call it something else. We treat it as magic, as though a first-trimester abortion mystically removes the unwanted-abstraction-which-is-not-alive-shut-up, transubstantiates the woman from “pregnant” to “not pregnant” and sends her heroically on her way. The death, the blood, the humanity-reduced-to-laboratory-specimens (I have seen them), we doublethink these messy realities away. And we tell our young (and ourselves, truth be told) that they may fornicate freely, without consequence, because “protection” exists, and if “protection” fails (or they fail “protection”) we have this Serious And Important Issue to Pontificate and Philosophize About, which will unmake the the consequence.

We call this “Love”. We call it “Modern.” We call it “Necessary.” We call it “Woman Retaking her Power from the Patriarchy.” We call it “Free of Medieval Moralizing.” We call it “Rational”. We don’t call it “Infant Girl Decapitated With Scissors.

We don’t want to see it. We don’t want to know.

The Joy of Baby-Killing

In my anti-gay-marriage apologia, I mused about what new taboo the cultural left would set its targets on once gay marriage became the norm. Protein Wisdom has found it“after-birth abortion” infanticide.

Abortion is largely accepted even for reasons that do not have anything to do with the fetus’ health. By showing that (1) both fetuses and newborns do not have the same moral status as actual persons, (2) the fact that both are potential persons is morally irrelevant and (3) adoption is not always in the best interest of actual people, the authors argue that what we call ‘after-birth abortion’ (killing a newborn) should be permissible in all the cases where abortion is, including cases where the newborn is not disabled. […]

This is what reason does when divorced from first principles: it finds a rationale for any kind of behavior, and then determines, since a rationale exists, that it must be ethically acceptable. Any argument against the behavior must thus prove the rationale invalid, or else, however impeccably reasoned from first principles, said argument must be “irrational.”

So the left is readying itself to declare more and more humans to be un-persons.

Just like old times...

Into the Hysteria

Rick Santorum is apparently a killer. Because he wants to ban amniocentesis.

Except what he actually said was this:

Free prenatal testing “saves money in health care. Why? Because free prenatal testing ends up in more abortions and therefore less care that has to be done, because we cull the ranks of the disabled in our society.”

So what I guess I see him saying is that prenatal testing, if a matter of choice, ought to be a matter of payment as well. Which, I can’t really argue with.

This is the problem I keep seeing in the contraception/abortion brouhaha: the equivocation of refusing to pay for with banning. Surely, if these tests are so wonderful, they’re worth the money.

But spiraling health care costs! Indeed. Which is a separate issue. If we had a sensible health care system in which prices reflected actual costs, matters would be different. Instead, we find ourselves forced to assent to things out of egalitarian obligation. Which is how our health care system became screwed to begin with.

One thing I don’t understand is the need to perform an abortion on a fetus with a small chance at life. Why kill what’s going to die anyway? Why not give a human a chance, however remote?

And that’s why I’ve never been able to embrace abortion as a moral act. Opponents of abortion are consistently told that they have no right to judge another’s hard, painful choice. And maybe so. But abortion itself includes an act of judgement, and of a far starker kind. To abort a child is to say “This human is unworthy to live.”

And that does not become less true if you tell me how unworthy I am to say it. Stipulate that I have no standing, due to the unfortunate placement of my organs of generation outside my abdominal cavity. Stipulate that I have never walked, and can never walk, down the sad cruel, road of a woman with an unwanted baby. Stipulate that I do not understand.

The question “Who are you to judge?” still applies evenly.

Assail at will.

Vaginal Probing!

Before my daughter was born, I went to several ultrasounds with my wife. It never occured to me that the procedure was something being forced upon her against her will. It was part of the process. Not sure I’m getting how that’s rape, unless everything that breaches consent is so defined. If the baby passes through your vagina when you’d intended a C-section, is it raping you?

Little Miss Attilla expounds on the issue:

What is the alternative way, other than a sonogram, to judge the approximate size and developmental stage of a human fetus? I will tell you: the nurse practitioner (or doctor, or nurse, or clinic worker) places one hand on top of one’s pelvis, and the other hand in the vagina, and evaluates the size and age of the baby that way.

There is no way to judge fetal age without putting something into a woman’s vagina, and in most states it’s illegal to perform an abortion without establishing fetal age—it’s just that one technique provides a less accurate, less detailed picture than does the other.

After which, she discusses the relative discomfort of a) rape, b) an abortion, and c) an ultrasound, all of which she has experience with. Read the Whole Thing.