Tuesday, October 28, 2008

Roundup: A new embryology theory, Obama and "prevention", and knowing a little too little

The Planned Parenthood in Stockton, California, evidently subscribes to the agricultural theory of embryology. It's not a baby, it's a rice cake!

An analysis of Barack Obama's promise to Planned Parenthood (that the first thing he'd do as POTUS is sign the "Freedom of Choice Act") notes that this one stroke of the pen would likely raise abortion rates in America 20%. Explain, please, how this constitutes "prevention".

Some people know just enough to be dangerous. Womensgrid laments how "murky" the law is in Northern Ireland regarding abortion. Alas, she laments, women suffer because they can't just go rid themselves of their fetuses when they're distressed about being pregnant. What she doesn't realize is that Dr. Alec Bourne, whose case she cites, wasn't as enamored as she is of on-demand abortion. In fact, Bourne later wrote, "Those who plead for an extensive relaxation of the law [against abortion] have no idea of the very many cases where a woman who, during the first three months, makes a most impassioned appeal for her pregnancy to be 'finished,' later, when the baby is born, is thankful indeed that it was not killed while still an embryo. During my long years in practice I have had many a letter of the deepest gratitude for refusing to accede to an early appeal." (A. Bourne, A Doctor's Creed: The Memoirs of a Gynecologist, London, 1963) Pray for the rest of poor Dr. Bourne's soul. He must be tormented at the thought of what he unwittingly helped to unleash. He never wanted abortion on demand, but that's what his ill-thought-out attempt at compassion ended up producing. (And, of course, as is so often the case in blogs like womensgrid, comments are closed; it's not a good idea to open your mind too far, is it? You might realize the world isn't the way you think it is.)

3 comments:

Al said...

PP knows just what it is doing when it uses "grain of rice" "blood clot", "little cloud" & its other terms. When you make it anything but the human it really is, then FOCA & other pro-abortion laws become palitable to the ignorant public. That is why they hate those signs that show what happens to the unborn child as a result of the abortion.

Amy said...

al:

I go round and round with abortion supporters on other blogs. Especially on Michelle Malkin, the new paradigm shift in the pro-abort movement seems to be acknowledging they're human, but claiming because they don't have fully-functioning brains, can't feel pain (something some argue is true up until birth) or can't live outside the womb, it's still okay to kill them.

I fear it will eventually wind up that the pro-abort movement shrugs and says, "Yeah, they're human...so what are you gonna do about it?"

GrannyGrump said...

Magda Denes, who is in her own words "pro-abortion", admits that the viability argument in favor of abortion doesn't hold water. She said you might just as well argue that it's acceptable to hold a non-swimmer's head in the bathtub to drown him on the grounds that he'd die if he fell into the ocean.

I pointed this out to a prochoice girl who said, "That does make sense. They are perfectly capable of living right where they're supposed to be. Is the fact that they'd die if you put them in an inhospitable environment really grounds for killing them?" She didn't change her mind just then, but she did think about it and I hope it planted a seed.