Doctors reported that during the heart operation on
the British infant,
The Milwaukee Journal, April 9, 1990
In February 1990, British doctors announced the first heart operation on a baby in the womb. Quite consistently, news articles -- and even the surgeon who performed the operation -- referred to the infant in utero as a "baby." The pregnant woman was commonly referred to as "the mother."
"Doctors perform first heart operation on baby in womb," blared headlines of the Chicago Tribune.
"... baby in the womb?" I thought they were calling them "fetuses" these days.
Well, it depends. When a woman wants to keep her child, it is a "baby." During prenatal classes and checkups, she will be told: "he's a healthy body," "She's got an infection," etc. To the obstetrician, whose job it is to monitor the infant's development, the child has an identity, gender, medical history and, if allowed to grow, a future.
If, on the other hand, the woman enters an abortion mill, her condition is viewed quite differently. There she will be told that "the product of conception" can be extracted, like a tooth -- or removed, like a cancer. But is "it" just a "part of the woman's body," as feminists would have us believe?
Doctors reported that during the heart operation on the British infant, the mother was not under anesthesia. She didn't need to be, because she felt no pain. It wasn't her heart. So, whose was it?
According to the operating surgeon, babies suffering from the defect usually die in the womb. But can something die, if it is not alive? And if it's not alive, why do they have to kill it? If it is alive, isn't it wrong to kill it?
When a mother plans to keep her baby, anyone who injures it through carelessness, such as drunken driving, or any deliberate act, such as a beating or stabbing, could be found guilty of manslaughter. But when a doctor contracts with the mother to intentionally kill it, the law is on his side. This is justice?
When a prgnant woman committed suicide a couple years ago by jumping off a Chicago bridge, doctors kept the infant alive inside her body for quite some time. If the baby was just a part of her body, it would have died when she died. But "it" didn't! Unquestionably, the infant in utero is a distinct individual, apart from the mother, with an identity of its own.
Not along ago, books and encyclopedias still referred to the unborn child as a "baby." The term "abortion" was described with utter disdain, as a "criminal" act. But 20 years ago, some folks decided it would no longer be murder to kill your own kid, and they rewrote the law. They were not doctors who decided this, but judges. And ever since, scores of women have been streaming into clinics to terminate their pregnancies.
"Baby" makes it sound like a person -- in which case it should have the protection of the law. But if we ascribe to "it" an identity, and thus rights, we have to admit that the taking of its life is wrong. And that just doesn't fit some folks' philosophy.
However, changing the terminology doesn't alter the facts. It might make it sound better, perhaps less disturbing to the conscience. But Scripture is clear regarding the unborn. Both the prophet Jeremiah and the apostle Paul were ordained to ministry before they were even born. (Gal 1:15; Jer 1:5) And when Mary, who was "with child," greeted Elizabeth, "the babe leaped in her womb." She had "conceived a son." (Luke 1:41, 44, 36) Women bear (carry) children, not blobs.
Scripture, common sense, and medical science all reinforce the pro-life position.
Copyright © 1990 Diane S. Dew
Why should we care what they do with their
............. INDEX of Other Abortion-related Articles
1998 Diane S. Dew