ARE SOME OF OUR POLITICAL LEADERS LACKING IN GREY MATTER?
Altogether now - one, two, three: "The fetus is not a human person, because the Supreme Court tells me so. The fetus is just a ‘potential human being, because the Supreme Court tells me so." Now, don’t we all feel much better after this uplifting little prayer? Of course, if the Supreme Court were to rule that the sun travels around the earth, well, then that IS what happens, right? And if this means that we must all hold unreservedly to that belief - the Supreme Court being the final judge on the question - then let`s do it for Pete`s sake!
With the help of biased pro-abortion media, the public has bought into the myth that supreme courts have settled once and for all the issue of abortion. In Canada, prior to the March 12, 2001, Alberta election, the provincial Liberal Party made this absolutely stunning categorical claim. In doing so it merely parroted what the ruling Liberal Party of Prime Minister Jean Chrétien broadcasted during his October 2000 federal campaign: "The Supreme Court of Canada ruled in 1989 that all abortions are medically necessary and must be fully funded by provincial health plans, otherwise the province would be in contravention of the Canada Health Act."
This is, of course, a malicious falsification of the facts. The Supreme Court of Canada has never ruled that abortion is a medically necessary procedure that must be funded by provincial health plans. It did, however, eliminate Section 251 of the Criminal Code in 1988, while at the same time urging Parliament to erect a new law to replace it - something it has yet to accomplish in almost 13 years since that infamous Court ruling which opened the flood gates to abortion on demand in Canada. But to claim the Supreme Court has ever required provinces to fund abortions is boldly dishonest. It is a sobering fact that some politicians would knowingly resort to outright falsehoods to cowardly avoid dealing with the fact that Canada, perhaps unique in the world, has no abortion law at all.
Politicians in Canada and the U.S. truly delude themselves in thinking that our supreme courts can provide the consensus needed to reach a common ground on abortion. Common ground will never be found as long as the objective scientific facts of human embryology are disregarded or, worse, misrepresented to satisfy someone`s personal agenda.
For all their alleged wisdom, our courts have not yet received the divine gift of infused knowledge. The objective fact still remains that, supreme courts notwithstanding, the preborn human fetus is already a human being, and has been such since fertilization. There should be suggestions made to these unenlightened supreme court justices and politicians that they would profit from a short visit to a local public library where they would find out what really are the indisputable scientific facts presented in any simple good human embryology textbook.
In light of these astounding court rulings, is it at all surprising to find out that the term fetus is now being applied, not to a child in the womb, but to a baby after delivery? Incredible you say? Well, it`s true, and be prepared, Brother Knights, to deal with Satan`s newest perversion in his culture of death. The unbelievable regulation can be found in the Federal Register (Vol. 66, No. 11), signed by the Great Pretender himself, Bill Clinton, days before his welcomed departure from the White House. Incredible as it may seem, this proposal first appeared in 1975. In that Human Health Service ruling, a fetus was defined as "the product of conception from implantation until a determination is made after delivery that it is viable."
Nowhere but in the la-la land of abortion supporters do we find a greater tendency to selectively used medical terms to cloud the issues surrounding abortion rights. This convenient abusive use of scientific terms has reached its ridiculous culmination in the state of utter confusion underpinning the abortion profession - leading it to redefine a baby right out of its humanness. It would, therefore, be useful before proceeding further to discuss the scientific medical context of the widespread and popular use of "fetus" and present its dictionary meaning rather than its often dehumanizing description by the abortion establishment.
In medical terms, once a fertilized egg, called a zygote, begins to divide, this tiny human being is known as an embryo. The embryonic stage ends after about two months of development and the fetal stage begins as the bones begin to harden. However, once the child is born, he or she is, in medical jargon, a "neonate." Also, the proper scientific expression for pregnant woman is "gravida." The terms gravida, zygote, embryo, fetus and neonate are obviously useful in medical school. However, they are quite cumbersome in the ordinary public context and are thankfully practically never used - except, that is, for "fetus."
Should a movie star, say, be injured in a spectacular fall and suffer a broken hand, editors would not accept this to be reported as a fracture of the "metacarpus." The very first maxim of any respectable journalism school is "Use plain, everyday language" and it is put to exceptional good use by most reporters - except, that is, in abortion reporting.
Pro-abortionists who use "fetus" to the exclusion of "unborn child" to dehumanizing the child in the womb often can`t help but trip all over themselves in making a coherent abortion statement. Their allegations are often mindless and anti-intellectual, as in this AP story appearing recently in the news: "A House committee approved a measure that would make it a crime to hurt or kill a fetus during a violent crime against the mother." This reporter would certainly be hard pressed to explain just how there can be a mother without a child?
Much of the success of the abortion establishment has to be attributed to the sympathetic treatment it receives from the mass media whose support for abortion is based on the two basic lies of the abortion industry, namely, that the unborn child is not a human being, and that abortion is harmless. Indeed, the mainstream press appear to be peopled by men and women who count it a lost day when they are unable to do something to hurt the pro-life movement. It isn`t surprising therefore that the abortion establishment has most of the media in its hip pocket, airily ignoring what we riff-raff pro-lifers say (or else distorting it). Invariably, when it comes to evaluating pro-life assertions, the media cut our opponents limitless slack while holding us to absolute accuracy. The appalling medical misinformation they circulate is corrupting the nation as well as is their casual and arrogant view of abortion (illustrated in an October 16, 1995 Toronto Star editorial claiming that an abortion is "medically necessary" when "a woman wants one". End of discussion!). Really, one can`t help but wonder if most of our major newspapers mistake the echo of their own voices for the sound of public opinion. Sadly, however, their strident support for abortion as a basic right and empowering element for women has facilitated the slaughter in North America of some 55 million babies before they are born.
The meek acceptance by the Christian community of this programmed deceit on the part of those charged with providing leadership and objective information must be countered. It is time for individual Knights, as newspaper and magazine readers, TV watchers, radio listeners, and voters to tell these Supreme Court-worshipping politicians, newspaper editors, reporters, columnists and public officials to wake up to reality and do their jobs honourably. They must be told to stop manipulating the public with specious arguments implying that the morality of abortion has been determined with finality by supreme courts` rulings. It is time to act now! Further procrastination will only accelerate our perilous glide down the slippery abortion slope. Our Lady of Guadalupe, we pray you to help change hearts of stone into hearts of flesh and love.
Fredericton, New Brunswick
Return to the Unborn Children's Website