Printer Friendly

Reducing unborn babies to medical waste: how the pro-abortion mind works.

Whatever their position on abortion, I suspect most people would (a) be shocked to learn that in many instances, "fetal remains" are disposed of as "medical waste," and (b) find it puzzling that anyone would object to providing a dignified burial--interred or cremated.

A story that appeared in the pro-abortion website Rhealitycheck.org [now known as Rewirenews.org] provides some insight into the proabortion mind.

The irony is that "The Day I Learned Aborted Fetuses Aren't People" bears no relationship to [rh]reality. None, at least not the reality that 99% of the rest of us occupy.

You may find an occasional syllable in Amy Littlefield's piece that tangentially bumps into how almost all of us understand our lives but that is purely by accident.

So what was the day like when Littlefield discovered that "aborted fetuses aren't people"?

We learn that "in my former work," Littlefield worked as an abortion clinic counselor. "I often avoided seeing what we called the products of conception--the tissue that results from the union of egg and sperm," she tells us.

To be clear, this is not because that might gross her out. Rather it because (a)"For me, the embryo--or fetus, in later stages of pregnancy--was irrelevant," and (b) "I wanted to focus all of my attention on my patients."

Later she elaborates:
   Still, in the clinics
   where I worked, I
   tended to avoid seeing
   the medical waste. I
   avoided it because it
   was irrelevant to my
   work. But I think part
   of me also avoided
   it because I thought
   seeing fetal tissue might
   diminish my allegiance
   to my patients


Oh, you mean you feared you feel a tinge of compassion for the child whose body has just been torn apart? Nah, not a chance.

So, you're probably wondering what I was wondering when I got to the last three paragraphs of her essay: how again did you figure out ("learn") that "aborted fetuses aren't people"?

Here it is:
      Yet even as I took
   part in hundreds
   of abortions as a
   counselor, I think
   on some level, I still
   wondered if seeing
   second-trimester fetal
   tissue ["fetal tissue"?]
   could shake my prochoice
   views. Then one
   day, I was offered the
   unusual opportunity to
   see the fetus of a patient
   who had been close
   to 22 weeks pregnant.
   With some trepidation,
   I accepted. I looked.
   And in that moment,
   my pro-choice position
   crystallized.

      While it was shaped
   like a baby, what I
   was looking at was
   not a person. It was
   a fetus. A fetus my
   patient had chosen not
   to make into a baby. I
   felt no attachment to
   it. Relieved, I stepped
   into the recovery room
   to check on my patient.
   Years later, looking
   back on this moment,
   it's still the patient I
   think about, not the
   fetus.

      Her life was what
   mattered.


I honestly don't know exactly how to respond. The "fetus" wasn't a "baby" because the "patient" (the mother) had "chosen not to make ["it"-the baby] into a baby."

What if the patient decided the fetus-not-made-into-a-baby was an orangutan? What if she decided the beating heart was a miniature Interstate battery?

What if she looked at her baby (whoops, fetus), now close to a foot in length, and decided it was a ruler?

Sure the "fetus" may have been "shaped like a baby," but maybe it was a spaghetti squash. Both weigh about 1 pound.

I guess Littlefield reasons (to use the term in its loosest possible fashion) that because the patient hadn't given the fetus the go ahead sign to become a baby, she could also feel unattached as well.

Her attention, even now, is on the woman and thus (well, sort of thus) the aborted fetus was not a "person." It was medical waste which you can do what you will with, including passing along to "tissue procurement companies" who can peddle intact baby parts to the lovely folks who experiment on fetal lungs and hearts and livers and brains for a living.

Indeed, had the patient so wanted, Littlefield's colleagues could have induced a premature delivery so the patient could bond with the baby who would die either in delivery or from non-attention after her birth.

Why not? After all. for Littlefield , all that mattered was the patient.

I have no conclusion except this. Nothing can shake the "pro-choice views" of people like Littlefield.

Which makes them very, very scary and very, very dangerous people.

Please Note: Illustration(s) are not available due to copyright restrictions.
COPYRIGHT 2019 National Right to Life Committee, Inc.
No portion of this article can be reproduced without the express written permission from the copyright holder.
Copyright 2019 Gale, Cengage Learning. All rights reserved.

Article Details
Printer friendly Cite/link Email Feedback
Author:Andrusko, Dave
Publication:National Right to Life News
Date:Nov 1, 2019
Words:749
Previous Article:Writer offers the "strongest argument" for abortion and for life.
Next Article:Florida parental consent law receives support from Senate president.
Topics:

Terms of use | Privacy policy | Copyright © 2020 Farlex, Inc. | Feedback | For webmasters