The picture in Sarah Cain’s article is from a pro-choice demonstration. The picture appropriately illustrates what Sarah has entitled, “Ignorance Is the Enemy of Life.” The photo shows a pregnant mother who has written across her belly the words "Not Yet A Human." Many years ago, this was the claim of the pro-choice movement. The fetus was not a human being, just a clump of cells. Removing a fetus was no more than cutting one’s fingernails or getting a haircut. That argument was tediously common.
Few advocates of abortion claim that today. We know better--hence, the title of Sarah Cain’s article. The fetus is a human being, not just a clump of cells. The pro-choice argument today is that the fetus, though human, is not a person. Since it is not a person, the fetus can be removed. In fact, some even claim that this argument actually justifies post-birth abortion; what we once called infanticide. What Sarah’s picture is saying, consequently, is as ambiguous as it is sinister. Is the pregnant mother claiming that the fetus developing within her is a clump of cells? Or is she saying that the fetus or even the newborn is subject to “elective abortion” until the point at which the child has actually achieved human personhood—whenever that is and whatever that means?
I hope this young mother’s pregnancy goes well and she delivers a healthy baby. But I desperately hope that she does not sacrifice her child to abortion. Moreover, I hope that child does not grow up to see this picture then to understand how his or her mother dismissed humanity with a trite, inaccurate phrase written across the expanding belly. The child would then know that he or she was the object of the mother’s political motto that personally dismissed his or her human worth. That would be a heavy slap in the face—one that the mother will regret but can never take back.
Parents often say words to their children such as these: “I love you, and you are the most important and precious gift that I have ever received.” Judging from this mother’s impassive face, and the words she has inscribed on her belly, now memorialized publicly in this published picture, this is not how she felt about her child when someone took the political photo. Instead, this mother elected to turn the growing life within her into a political prop, a prop that she could destroy as a personal right—whether she actually was considering doing that or not. Consequently, if this mother ever says to her child the loving words above, that child has every right to ask in return, “Mother, when did you change your mind about my humanity, and when did start believing that my life was important?” The mother’s answer to her child’s question will prove far more difficult to compose than the motto she scribbled over her stomach shortly before her child was born.
The picture in Sarah Cain’s article is from a pro-choice demonstration. The picture appropriately illustrates what Sarah has entitled, “Ignorance Is the Enemy of Life.” The photo shows a pregnant mother who has written across her belly the words "Not Yet A Human." Many years ago, this was the claim of the pro-choice movement. The fetus was not a human being, just a clump of cells. Removing a fetus was no more than cutting one’s fingernails or getting a haircut. That argument was tediously common.
Few advocates of abortion claim that today. We know better--hence, the title of Sarah Cain’s article. The fetus is a human being, not just a clump of cells. The pro-choice argument today is that the fetus, though human, is not a person. Since it is not a person, the fetus can be removed. In fact, some even claim that this argument actually justifies post-birth abortion; what we once called infanticide. What Sarah’s picture is saying, consequently, is as ambiguous as it is sinister. Is the pregnant mother claiming that the fetus developing within her is a clump of cells? Or is she saying that the fetus or even the newborn is subject to “elective abortion” until the point at which the child has actually achieved human personhood—whenever that is and whatever that means?
I hope this young mother’s pregnancy goes well and she delivers a healthy baby. But I desperately hope that she does not sacrifice her child to abortion. Moreover, I hope that child does not grow up to see this picture then to understand how his or her mother dismissed humanity with a trite, inaccurate phrase written across the expanding belly. The child would then know that he or she was the object of the mother’s political motto that personally dismissed his or her human worth. That would be a heavy slap in the face—one that the mother will regret but can never take back.
Parents often say words to their children such as these: “I love you, and you are the most important and precious gift that I have ever received.” Judging from this mother’s impassive face, and the words she has inscribed on her belly, now memorialized publicly in this published picture, this is not how she felt about her child when someone took the political photo. Instead, this mother elected to turn the growing life within her into a political prop, a prop that she could destroy as a personal right—whether she actually was considering doing that or not. Consequently, if this mother ever says to her child the loving words above, that child has every right to ask in return, “Mother, when did you change your mind about my humanity, and when did start believing that my life was important?” The mother’s answer to her child’s question will prove far more difficult to compose than the motto she scribbled over her stomach shortly before her child was born.