via the train wreck known as Rabble Prochoice...
Anonymous asked: I'm pro-choice, but I get this a lot: "How can you just call it a fetus? I know what it's like to have a baby inside me; my son/daughter touched my belly when I touched it, It moved around when I sang. How can you say they have no personality?" Etc., etc. How should I respond? I'd prefer to respond with facts, not anger. Thanks, Rabble!
Well, this is an interesting question.
People seem to think the term fetus somehow reduces a baby to something that isn’t as valuable because everything is so emotionally charged in the abortion debate. But the truth is that you aren’t reducing a baby to something invaluable. You’re using the correct term.
Movement and reactions are not indicative of babies. Those things alone don’t make something a baby. Hell, there are plants that respond to light and touch, are those babies?
I think the thing that is most important to point out is that a fetus is in an unconscious state up until birth. The movement a fetus does is reactionary, it’s not purposely moving because it’s completely unaware of its surroundings or its body, let alone the movements its body makes.
I think when people say things like what you’re proposing, they are really projecting what they want to see their child as. Which isn’t to say that’s a problem, it just hinders their ability to see things objectively. People who say such a thing wanted their children so of course they believe it’s already THEIR child while it’s still inside of them and they don’t hesitate to refer to it as such.
This isn’t the case for the overwhelming majority of people who terminate.
My point is that a fetus isn’t a term that is used to reduce the value of the thing living in the womb, it’s the biologically accurate term and it is only capable of reactionary movements (ie, putting a flashlight on the belly causes the fetus to react to the light as a reflex, not because it realizes it’s doing it or is moving on purpose). Just as we recognize that a child is incapable of doing the same things as an adult or isn’t as developed as adult (for example, the brain is still developing in children, children lack developed breasts, etc.) we must recognize that a fetus isn’t capable of the same things that babies are, whether it be due to development or because of the unconscious state the fetus is in.
Love,
Rabble
Seriously, it must be exhausting to contort the mind into this kind of mental gymnastics on a daily basis. Gotta love how childless feminists attempt to speak with faux-authority on what they have never experienced. I added the italics to highlight the extra epic fail.
According to Rabble, they're just clumps of cells, and of course we must stand on the assertion that clumps of cells don't move, and when they do, it's only 'reactionary'. Check any text on fetal devlopment for proof of this, and you'll come up with...nothing. Perhaps Rabble is unaware that 'fetus' is merely the Latin for young one or little one. The term fetus when used by proaborts, as we all know, is an attempt to reduce the unborn child to a clinical object worthy of destruction.
Perhaps Rabble is also unaware that the human brain isn't fully developed until age 21. So maybe we're just 'projecting' that all individuals younger than 21 aren't persons? All those less capable than others also fall under her 'less than' ideology, since fetuses 'can't do the same things as babies.'? Apparently she's unaware that unborn babies suck their thumbs, yawn, smile, cry and sleep-gee, they're sounding a lot like babies there, eh? Unborn babies also have very distinct waking and sleeping patterns, as any woman who's actually carried one can attest to-my son used to do somersaults around the same time every day, and I was the one who'd get dizzy. He once got his foot stuck between my ribs while stretching, and it took me about 20 minutes to work it free (he was in a panic by that point, flailing around trying to free his foot. Not bad for someone who was supposedly unconscious for nine months). But, hey, don't let all that activity fool you, ladies, it's really just an inert mass and that movement you feel is probably gas or something. That's REAL science. It's only your child if you BELIEVE it is. Cuz Rabble says so. Proaborts simply can't afford the very real and normal emotional attachment mothers have to their children-it's far too human for them.
It's reprehensible that she would offer up such crap to a mother. Then again, the biggest 'experts' on something are usually the ones who've never experienced it. The saddest part of this is that this is the standard narrative of abortion counselors in abortion mills across this country. Somewhere, right now, a woman with similar earnest questions is being fed this same line of bullshit. Seriously, Rabble, keep your day job.
Reactionary reflexes are automatic too, they don't differ from person to person. An innate reflex, like withdrawing from pain or the startle reflex is the same in everyone. Sure, babies, even inutero babies currently at the medical stage of fetus have *some* automatic innate responses, but they also have very purposeful and intentional responses to stimuli as well. The easiest way to prove this logically is to look at the range of responses different babies give to the same stimuli. When a mirco camera is intruduced into a womb to take pictures (for medical purposes or medical/documentary purposes) some babies withdraw and try to get away from it, others approach and try to touch it. My son loved being touched inutero, any time my stomach was palpated he's float right up to meet your hands. He loved the ultrasound/doppler and would float up to meet it and stay right by it even if it was moved. My daughter, on the other hand, withdrew from touch, and would even push back at a hand or weight to get it off my stomach and she hated the ultrasound/doppler and would actively try to avoid it. Different repsonses means personality and purpose, not automatic reaction.
ReplyDeleteExactly, which only illustrates further the humanity of the fetus, in my opinion.
ReplyDelete