According to this news article, a US Court of Appeals ruled that a new law requiring abortionists to have admitting privileges at a nearby hospital cannot be implemented because it would cause the last abortion clinic in the state to close and, thus, interfere with a woman's "constitutional right to end her pregnancy by abortion" within the state.
Of course, someone should explain to this court that there is no "Constitutional right" to end a pregnancy by abortion. Not once is there any mention of abortion in the Constitution. Not once is there ever a guarantee that a mother has a right to kill her child. In fact, the Constitution says precisely the opposite.
The 5th Amendment says that "No person shall be...deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law."
The 14th Amendment similarly states that "No State shall...deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws."
Since a new human life begins at fertilization and all humans are persons, the Constitution says that these pre-born humans cannot be deprived of life without due process of law or denied equal protection of the law. Unfortunately, our court system does not recognize this straightforward reading of the Constitution and is denying the rights of the unborn.
The other issue is that the law in question did not seek to ban abortion, but merely changed the regulations for abortion clinics in order to protect the health of women. So not only did this court ruling fail to protect the unborn, it failed to protect women from sub-standard health practitioners who ought not to be practicing medicine on anyone. What this court decided, then, was that it is so important that women be able to get an abortion conveniently (without going out of state) that we ought not to let concerns about how safe it is for her get in the way.
So much for the liberals' claim that they want abortion to be safe. They don't care if it's safe, as long as it's readily available.
Thursday, July 31, 2014
Wednesday, June 11, 2014
13-Year-Old Girl in UK Forced by Judge to Have an Abortion
According to this article in the Huffington Post, a 13-year-old girl in the UK was ordered by a judge to have an abortion, which has since been carried out. The girl is mentally disabled and said to have the mental capacity of a 7-year-old. In spite of her very clear indications that she did not want an abortion and the testimony of a professional psychiatrist that an abortion would be emotionally damaging for her and that she would see it as an assault, the judge ruled that an abortion was in her best interest. In his words: "Leaving to one side her own wishes and feelings, the preponderance of all the evidence is clear that it would be in her best interests to have a termination."
So now it's not even about a woman's choice, I guess. Now that we have defined the unborn to be non-persons and made it legally and socially acceptable to kill them at will, our society now sees killing an unborn child as health care for the mother and of no more significance than of pulling a tooth or having an appendix removed. Is it any wonder, then, that a judge would rule that forcing a young teen to have an abortion against her will is in her best interest? Is it any wonder that her conscience, in not wanting to kill her child, was ignored?
If the unborn are not persons, then not only should we ignore the rights of the unborn child, but we should also ignore any ideas people might have about the humanity of the unborn. A young woman's conscience (i.e. "wishes and feelings") being opposed to abortion must be just superstition and shouldn't be taken into account in deciding what is best for her. That is the logic we are seeing here.
This isn't the first such case either. For example, there have been similar cases of mentally disabled women forced or nearly forced to have abortions by judges in January of 2012 in Massachusetts, November of 2012 in Nevada, and January of 2013 in London.
In a culture where dehumanizing the unborn is so common, it is no surprise to see a shift toward forced abortion as people see less and less reason to value and protect life. All this talk of "choice" contributes to the idea that abortion is just an ordinary choice. So if the courts can decide what is best for a child or disabled person in other matters, why not decide for them whether they should have an abortion? Why not "choose" abortion for those deemed incapable of choice for themselves? If abortion is just a choice, that's what logically follows, and we can expect to see a lot more women forced to abort in the future.
So now it's not even about a woman's choice, I guess. Now that we have defined the unborn to be non-persons and made it legally and socially acceptable to kill them at will, our society now sees killing an unborn child as health care for the mother and of no more significance than of pulling a tooth or having an appendix removed. Is it any wonder, then, that a judge would rule that forcing a young teen to have an abortion against her will is in her best interest? Is it any wonder that her conscience, in not wanting to kill her child, was ignored?
If the unborn are not persons, then not only should we ignore the rights of the unborn child, but we should also ignore any ideas people might have about the humanity of the unborn. A young woman's conscience (i.e. "wishes and feelings") being opposed to abortion must be just superstition and shouldn't be taken into account in deciding what is best for her. That is the logic we are seeing here.
This isn't the first such case either. For example, there have been similar cases of mentally disabled women forced or nearly forced to have abortions by judges in January of 2012 in Massachusetts, November of 2012 in Nevada, and January of 2013 in London.
In a culture where dehumanizing the unborn is so common, it is no surprise to see a shift toward forced abortion as people see less and less reason to value and protect life. All this talk of "choice" contributes to the idea that abortion is just an ordinary choice. So if the courts can decide what is best for a child or disabled person in other matters, why not decide for them whether they should have an abortion? Why not "choose" abortion for those deemed incapable of choice for themselves? If abortion is just a choice, that's what logically follows, and we can expect to see a lot more women forced to abort in the future.
Abortion for the Life of the Mother?
One of the most common arguments brought up with regard to keeping abortion legal is the life of the mother. Whenever anyone says that abortion should be illegal, the immediate response from the pro-abortion side is "What about abortions to save the life of the mother?" They seem to think that making abortion illegal places women at risk. However, the life of the mother argument is not a good argument for keeping all abortion legal.
First, we would like to make it clear that we are unconvinced that abortion is ever necessary to save the life of anyone. In fact, there is good reason to think that direct abortion is never a necessary treatment for any condition of the mother. (See statements from the American Association of Pro-Life Obstetricians and Gynecologists here, here, and especially here.)
However, we are open to the possibility of terminating a pregnancy to save a woman's life. If several doctors independently agree that it is absolutely necessary to end a pregnancy, otherwise the mother will die, then the mother should be treated to save her life. Some might call this abortion, though the intent differs from elective abortion in that the death of the child is not the primary objective. We don't consider such life-saving procedures abortions. Abortion involves the intentional killing of the unborn child as its main purpose and is not simply removing a fetus or ending a pregnancy (that's called birth or C-section). Thus, a procedure that removes a child from the womb for the purpose of preserving the mother's life is not the same thing as abortion, even if the child dies as a result.
In discussing this issue, several points come to mind:
1. Most abortions do not fall into this category.
2. Doctors should be required to recognize that with a pregnant woman they have two patients, and every effort should be made to save both of them.
3. If the pregnancy is causing complications, an induction or C-section with the intent to save the child's life should be performed instead of an abortion, if at all possible.
4. In many ectopic pregnancies (due to the location of implantation), the unborn child has no chance of survival anyway. So save the person you can - the mother.
5. In many cases where the life of the mother is endangered, the unborn child will not survive if the mother dies. So in those cases, it only makes sense to save the mother. The death of the child is not an intended result in such cases, but a by-product of saving the mother's life.
6. In many cases where abortion is claimed to be for the life of the mother, it is really to protect doctors. For example, a pregnant woman with cancer may be advised to have an abortion and then start chemotherapy. The idea is that chemo is dangerous to the child and so the mother should get an abortion before starting treatment. However, in these cases it is the cancer threatening the mother's life, not the pregnancy. And doctors are usually advising abortion so that they aren't sued for harming the baby by giving chemo to a pregnant woman. But if the unborn child is a human being (and he is), then it is never okay to kill him to prevent a risk of injury to him. That's like shooting someone because he is at risk for a heart attack. The "cure" (abortion) is worse than the disease (possible birth defect or death). That isn't medicine; that's doctors covering their own tails. The proper way to handle these situations is to consider both patients and work to do the least harm. Early delivery may be the best solution. Having the mother undergo chemo, even while pregnant, may be necessary (even if it causes the death of the child). The best decision may vary, depending on the individual case. But it is not necessary to purposely kill the baby in order to treat the mother.
7. The proposal for these "life of the mother abortions" should originate from an actual doctor, not someone in an abortion mill (like Planned Parenthood), nor from the patient (in order to avoid to avoid doctor shopping for an abortion). For instance, a cancer patient does not shop around for a doctor who will prescribe chemotherapy. He goes do a doctor who then prescribes chemotherapy if it is necessary to save the patient’s life. Remember, we're talking about a medical decision which is designed to save the life of the mother. That should be the original and primary intention – not an abortion. An actual abortion should be a last resort, and employed only when it is the only way to save the mother’s life.
8. In general, the purpose should not be to get rid of an unwanted pregnancy. We're talking about necessary steps to save the life of the mother which may, unfortunately, result in the death of her unborn child.
9. This life of the mother exception does not, in any way, justify elective abortions or abortion on demand. So most abortions should be illegal.
First, we would like to make it clear that we are unconvinced that abortion is ever necessary to save the life of anyone. In fact, there is good reason to think that direct abortion is never a necessary treatment for any condition of the mother. (See statements from the American Association of Pro-Life Obstetricians and Gynecologists here, here, and especially here.)
However, we are open to the possibility of terminating a pregnancy to save a woman's life. If several doctors independently agree that it is absolutely necessary to end a pregnancy, otherwise the mother will die, then the mother should be treated to save her life. Some might call this abortion, though the intent differs from elective abortion in that the death of the child is not the primary objective. We don't consider such life-saving procedures abortions. Abortion involves the intentional killing of the unborn child as its main purpose and is not simply removing a fetus or ending a pregnancy (that's called birth or C-section). Thus, a procedure that removes a child from the womb for the purpose of preserving the mother's life is not the same thing as abortion, even if the child dies as a result.
In discussing this issue, several points come to mind:
1. Most abortions do not fall into this category.
2. Doctors should be required to recognize that with a pregnant woman they have two patients, and every effort should be made to save both of them.
3. If the pregnancy is causing complications, an induction or C-section with the intent to save the child's life should be performed instead of an abortion, if at all possible.
4. In many ectopic pregnancies (due to the location of implantation), the unborn child has no chance of survival anyway. So save the person you can - the mother.
5. In many cases where the life of the mother is endangered, the unborn child will not survive if the mother dies. So in those cases, it only makes sense to save the mother. The death of the child is not an intended result in such cases, but a by-product of saving the mother's life.
6. In many cases where abortion is claimed to be for the life of the mother, it is really to protect doctors. For example, a pregnant woman with cancer may be advised to have an abortion and then start chemotherapy. The idea is that chemo is dangerous to the child and so the mother should get an abortion before starting treatment. However, in these cases it is the cancer threatening the mother's life, not the pregnancy. And doctors are usually advising abortion so that they aren't sued for harming the baby by giving chemo to a pregnant woman. But if the unborn child is a human being (and he is), then it is never okay to kill him to prevent a risk of injury to him. That's like shooting someone because he is at risk for a heart attack. The "cure" (abortion) is worse than the disease (possible birth defect or death). That isn't medicine; that's doctors covering their own tails. The proper way to handle these situations is to consider both patients and work to do the least harm. Early delivery may be the best solution. Having the mother undergo chemo, even while pregnant, may be necessary (even if it causes the death of the child). The best decision may vary, depending on the individual case. But it is not necessary to purposely kill the baby in order to treat the mother.
7. The proposal for these "life of the mother abortions" should originate from an actual doctor, not someone in an abortion mill (like Planned Parenthood), nor from the patient (in order to avoid to avoid doctor shopping for an abortion). For instance, a cancer patient does not shop around for a doctor who will prescribe chemotherapy. He goes do a doctor who then prescribes chemotherapy if it is necessary to save the patient’s life. Remember, we're talking about a medical decision which is designed to save the life of the mother. That should be the original and primary intention – not an abortion. An actual abortion should be a last resort, and employed only when it is the only way to save the mother’s life.
8. In general, the purpose should not be to get rid of an unwanted pregnancy. We're talking about necessary steps to save the life of the mother which may, unfortunately, result in the death of her unborn child.
9. This life of the mother exception does not, in any way, justify elective abortions or abortion on demand. So most abortions should be illegal.
Thursday, May 22, 2014
7 Ways to Change How you Speak about Abortion
In the abortion debate, one of things that often puts pro-lifers at a disadvantage is the improper and sloppy use of language. We often shoot ourselves in the foot with language that implies that the unborn are less than human or worth less than those who are born (as one pro-life Missouri representative did). Or we get labeled as “anti-choice” or “forced birthers” or any number of other names that make us sound bad. Liberals in general, and pro-abortion advocates in particular, are very good at twisting language to make themselves look better and the opposition look worse. They also deal in cutesy slogans and emotive labels that color perceptions in ways that are favorable to themselves. Well, it’s time we pro-lifers started fighting back and winning the language battle.
To help you in your fight against the abortion mindset of our culture, here are a few ways you can change your language in order to encourage a more pro-life mindset in those around you.
1. Use the phrase “commit abortion.”
Using this language points out that abortion is a wrong that one commits against another person. Just as theft or murder or rape are “committed” against someone else, so too is abortion.
2. Never refer to the unborn as “it.”
We don’t refer to born humans as “it” and we shouldn’t give the unborn any less respect and dignity. Humans are either male or female from conception onward. And, of course, conception is also when that human life begins. So refer to the unborn as he or she or use terms like “the child” rather than a dehumanizing “it.”
Since, classically, the male pronoun is used to refer to a generic human, I tend to use “he” or “him” when referring to the unborn. This also allows me to contrast “him” (the child) with “her” (the mother) more easily in conversations. It also points out, though rather subtly, that the child in a woman’s womb is often of a different sex than she is. He certainly isn’t part of her body.
3. Refer to the “abortion industry.”
Abortion is big business. Abortionists aren’t committing abortions (see what I did there?) out of the goodness of their hearts. They aren’t non-profits. They’re in it for the money. And it’s a lot of money too. Multi-billions of dollars per year kind of money. It’s an industry, not a humanitarian aid society. Point it out, loudly and often.
4. Use “abortion mill” and “abortionist.”
In the spirit of the previous point, refer to abortion facilities as abortion mills. Again, this points out that the money, rather than the good of women, is the goal of such places. It also emotively conjures up pictures of dirty conditions, debris lying around, and abortionists trudging from woman to woman, callously pulling dead babies from their wombs and then moving on to the next, in a long line of impersonal “procedures.” While not all facilities that perform abortions are like this, some certainly are. And if the opposition can use emotive language to influence people, I am not above doing it too in order to save lives.
Using terms like “abortion mill” or “abortionist” also helps to strip away the image of abortions as a medical procedure. Terms like “abortion clinic” make it sound so clean and medical. They lead the ignorant to believe that abortion is health care, administered by professional doctors just like any others. This is not accurate. Abortion is not health care and abortionists are usually not doctors in the usual sense of the word. Using better terminology helps point this out.
5. Say “pro-abortion” rather than “pro-choice.”
I’ve written about this one before. People who call themselves “pro-choice” aren’t usually in favor of choices across the board (like school choice, the choice to own guns, or the choice to drink giant sodas). They only apply this language of “choice” to a woman’s pregnancy. What choice is it that the "pro-choice" crowd is in favor of? It's the choice to have an abortion. The fundamental issue is that "pro-choice" people think it is okay to make the choice to abort, and that makes them pro-abortion.
Just as a person who thinks that a man should have a legal, legitimate choice of whether or not to rape a woman is pro-rape, a person who thinks a woman should have a legal, legitimate choice of whether or not to abort her child is pro-abortion.
The reason the other side likes the “pro-choice” label isn’t because it’s more accurate, but because it sounds better. It’s a euphemism. And, like most euphemisms, it’s designed to cover up the reality of the topic being discussed by framing it in more palatable terms. But if they really think abortion is perfectly fine, why don’t they own up to their views and come right out and admit to being pro-abortion? Why do they need a euphemism to make them feel better about their position? Using the term “pro-abortion” can help point out just exactly what they are standing up for, and make them face up to it, rather than letting them hide behind a nice-sounding label that conceals the truth.
6. Avoid using language that hints of birth as the beginning of life.
We’ve all done it. We talk about a friend having a baby "on the way” or we tell newborns “Welcome to the world.” But these kinds of phrases really aren’t accurate and only perpetuate the idea that the unborn aren’t people and that human life begins at birth. The truth is, once a woman is pregnant, she doesn’t have a baby "on the way" – the baby is already there, inside her. A newborn hasn’t just entered the world – he’s been in the world for roughly 9 months already.
Now, obviously, I know what people mean when they say these things. I don’t mean to quibble unnecessarily. But language is important. With millions upon millions of unborn lives snuffed out in the past few decades, a little bit of care in choosing our words is a small price to pay to help change the perceptions of those around us and support a culture of life.
7. Use the terms “discrimination” or “bigotry” to speak of the pro-abortion viewpoint that the unborn are not people.
When someone has a view that some human individuals are not people or shouldn’t have the same legal protections as all other people (i.e. people like themselves), that is bigotry and discrimination. Whether they base their views on race, age, disability, gender, or level of dependency, they’re still discriminating against some human beings. All humans have the same inalienable rights by virtue of being members of the human species. And thus, all humans should have the same legal protection. To claim otherwise is to look down on people who are not like you and try to deny them the protection you wish for yourself. That’s ugly and wrong, no matter how you slice it. Calling out this bigotry helps point out that the unborn are humans and that legal abortion is denying them equal rights. The injustice of abortion won’t stop until we force people to recognize the bigotry of the idea that unborn humans are not worthy of protection.
-----
These are just a few ideas to help you modify your language in order to foster a more pro-life culture. There are many other ways to do this, but hopefully these provide some food for thought and a starting point for reminding ourselves and others of the humanity of the unborn.
As a final note, it is probably worth pointing out that there are circumstances where using these terms is not the most effective thing to do. I don’t recommend using them in all circumstances, but only when their use will help further the pro-life mindset or provide clarity and contemplation of the problems with the pro-abortion stance.
When speaking to a woman who has had an abortion, it’s not likely to be very kind or very effective to speak of her going to an abortion mill to commit abortion. When talking to people who are trying to converse rationally and calmly about the topic of abortion, it may not be best to continually call them pro-aborts.
So using a little wisdom in how you insert these terms into your speech is recommended. But please be bold in standing for all human life and in pointing out the injustice of abortion. We need everyone on board, standing for life, if we are to make a difference.
To help you in your fight against the abortion mindset of our culture, here are a few ways you can change your language in order to encourage a more pro-life mindset in those around you.
1. Use the phrase “commit abortion.”
Using this language points out that abortion is a wrong that one commits against another person. Just as theft or murder or rape are “committed” against someone else, so too is abortion.
2. Never refer to the unborn as “it.”
We don’t refer to born humans as “it” and we shouldn’t give the unborn any less respect and dignity. Humans are either male or female from conception onward. And, of course, conception is also when that human life begins. So refer to the unborn as he or she or use terms like “the child” rather than a dehumanizing “it.”
Since, classically, the male pronoun is used to refer to a generic human, I tend to use “he” or “him” when referring to the unborn. This also allows me to contrast “him” (the child) with “her” (the mother) more easily in conversations. It also points out, though rather subtly, that the child in a woman’s womb is often of a different sex than she is. He certainly isn’t part of her body.
3. Refer to the “abortion industry.”
Abortion is big business. Abortionists aren’t committing abortions (see what I did there?) out of the goodness of their hearts. They aren’t non-profits. They’re in it for the money. And it’s a lot of money too. Multi-billions of dollars per year kind of money. It’s an industry, not a humanitarian aid society. Point it out, loudly and often.
4. Use “abortion mill” and “abortionist.”
In the spirit of the previous point, refer to abortion facilities as abortion mills. Again, this points out that the money, rather than the good of women, is the goal of such places. It also emotively conjures up pictures of dirty conditions, debris lying around, and abortionists trudging from woman to woman, callously pulling dead babies from their wombs and then moving on to the next, in a long line of impersonal “procedures.” While not all facilities that perform abortions are like this, some certainly are. And if the opposition can use emotive language to influence people, I am not above doing it too in order to save lives.
Using terms like “abortion mill” or “abortionist” also helps to strip away the image of abortions as a medical procedure. Terms like “abortion clinic” make it sound so clean and medical. They lead the ignorant to believe that abortion is health care, administered by professional doctors just like any others. This is not accurate. Abortion is not health care and abortionists are usually not doctors in the usual sense of the word. Using better terminology helps point this out.
5. Say “pro-abortion” rather than “pro-choice.”
I’ve written about this one before. People who call themselves “pro-choice” aren’t usually in favor of choices across the board (like school choice, the choice to own guns, or the choice to drink giant sodas). They only apply this language of “choice” to a woman’s pregnancy. What choice is it that the "pro-choice" crowd is in favor of? It's the choice to have an abortion. The fundamental issue is that "pro-choice" people think it is okay to make the choice to abort, and that makes them pro-abortion.
Just as a person who thinks that a man should have a legal, legitimate choice of whether or not to rape a woman is pro-rape, a person who thinks a woman should have a legal, legitimate choice of whether or not to abort her child is pro-abortion.
The reason the other side likes the “pro-choice” label isn’t because it’s more accurate, but because it sounds better. It’s a euphemism. And, like most euphemisms, it’s designed to cover up the reality of the topic being discussed by framing it in more palatable terms. But if they really think abortion is perfectly fine, why don’t they own up to their views and come right out and admit to being pro-abortion? Why do they need a euphemism to make them feel better about their position? Using the term “pro-abortion” can help point out just exactly what they are standing up for, and make them face up to it, rather than letting them hide behind a nice-sounding label that conceals the truth.
6. Avoid using language that hints of birth as the beginning of life.
We’ve all done it. We talk about a friend having a baby "on the way” or we tell newborns “Welcome to the world.” But these kinds of phrases really aren’t accurate and only perpetuate the idea that the unborn aren’t people and that human life begins at birth. The truth is, once a woman is pregnant, she doesn’t have a baby "on the way" – the baby is already there, inside her. A newborn hasn’t just entered the world – he’s been in the world for roughly 9 months already.
Now, obviously, I know what people mean when they say these things. I don’t mean to quibble unnecessarily. But language is important. With millions upon millions of unborn lives snuffed out in the past few decades, a little bit of care in choosing our words is a small price to pay to help change the perceptions of those around us and support a culture of life.
7. Use the terms “discrimination” or “bigotry” to speak of the pro-abortion viewpoint that the unborn are not people.
When someone has a view that some human individuals are not people or shouldn’t have the same legal protections as all other people (i.e. people like themselves), that is bigotry and discrimination. Whether they base their views on race, age, disability, gender, or level of dependency, they’re still discriminating against some human beings. All humans have the same inalienable rights by virtue of being members of the human species. And thus, all humans should have the same legal protection. To claim otherwise is to look down on people who are not like you and try to deny them the protection you wish for yourself. That’s ugly and wrong, no matter how you slice it. Calling out this bigotry helps point out that the unborn are humans and that legal abortion is denying them equal rights. The injustice of abortion won’t stop until we force people to recognize the bigotry of the idea that unborn humans are not worthy of protection.
-----
These are just a few ideas to help you modify your language in order to foster a more pro-life culture. There are many other ways to do this, but hopefully these provide some food for thought and a starting point for reminding ourselves and others of the humanity of the unborn.
As a final note, it is probably worth pointing out that there are circumstances where using these terms is not the most effective thing to do. I don’t recommend using them in all circumstances, but only when their use will help further the pro-life mindset or provide clarity and contemplation of the problems with the pro-abortion stance.
When speaking to a woman who has had an abortion, it’s not likely to be very kind or very effective to speak of her going to an abortion mill to commit abortion. When talking to people who are trying to converse rationally and calmly about the topic of abortion, it may not be best to continually call them pro-aborts.
So using a little wisdom in how you insert these terms into your speech is recommended. But please be bold in standing for all human life and in pointing out the injustice of abortion. We need everyone on board, standing for life, if we are to make a difference.
Monday, May 12, 2014
Twins Born Holding Hands
These identical twins were born holding hands.
It's rare for babies to share an amniotic sac, as these twins did. But it is quite common for twins to interact with each other in the womb. These babies already know one another and have been interacting with each other for months. I expect that newborns have many memories of life in the womb that persist for awhile, though they are eventually overwritten, as are most memories of early childhood. These memories are the reason, for example, that babies can recognize their mother's voice at birth. They have heard and remembered it from their life in the womb.
Babies have lives in the womb that we don't see, but which we can catch a glimpse of in circumstances like this. Birth isn't the beginning of life. It is just a event that happens in a person's life.
The idea that the unborn are not human beings is patently false. We can determine that strictly through science, which tells us that a new human individual is formed at fertilization. But stories like this one can help bring home to us the humanity of the unborn in a more personal way.
It's rare for babies to share an amniotic sac, as these twins did. But it is quite common for twins to interact with each other in the womb. These babies already know one another and have been interacting with each other for months. I expect that newborns have many memories of life in the womb that persist for awhile, though they are eventually overwritten, as are most memories of early childhood. These memories are the reason, for example, that babies can recognize their mother's voice at birth. They have heard and remembered it from their life in the womb.
Babies have lives in the womb that we don't see, but which we can catch a glimpse of in circumstances like this. Birth isn't the beginning of life. It is just a event that happens in a person's life.
The idea that the unborn are not human beings is patently false. We can determine that strictly through science, which tells us that a new human individual is formed at fertilization. But stories like this one can help bring home to us the humanity of the unborn in a more personal way.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)