Free Republic
Browse · Search
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

The Language of Abortion
National Right to Life ^ | 6/11/11 | Dave Andrusko

Posted on 07/05/2011 5:18:46 AM PDT by rhema

As they say,“if I had a dollar for”-- in this case every time I’ve written to make fun of the verbal gymnastics that pro-abortionists routinely employ -- I’d be rich.

But words on a page or on a computer screen, while effective, have a tough time competing with videos which are able to combine words, images, music, and people interacting. When done imaginatively, they are highly persuasive.

I talked about “Interview with an Unborn Child” yesterday. The 4 minute 16 second-long video -- HERE -- is an eerily powerful chronicle, narrated by the doomed unborn child himself, which sends chills up and down your spine.

At the other end of the educational spectrum is “The Language of Abortion,” produced by Signal Hill, a Canadian pro-life group. This 31-second long video uses humor (mixed with the mildest of ridicule) to convey a powerful truth by means of a question—“The language of abortion is confusing. What are we trying to hide?”

There are three settings. The first is a baby shower. Looking down we see the lettering on a cake which reads,“Congratulations on your products of conception.” As the pregnant mom comes in the room, the assembled women cheerfully laugh as we catch a glimpse of the banner on the wall:“Uterine Contents Shower.”

A quick cut to the doctor’s office where she is drumming her fingers as she waits to see her obstetrician. The receptionist politely asks,“Is this your first clump of cells?”

The final scene is of a very pregnant woman sitting in her bedroom. In a very lovely and affectionate way she sings to her baby,“Hush blob of tissue don’t say a word, mommy’s gonna…”

So,“What are we trying to hide?” The truth that a baby is a baby is a baby.

The video is only a half-minute long. Please go to

The Language of Abortion

Signal Hill

TOPICS: Culture/Society; Editorial
KEYWORDS: abortion; plannedparenthood; prolife

1 posted on 07/05/2011 5:18:50 AM PDT by rhema
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: wagglebee; Caleb1411; Salvation;; MHGinTN
"The Language of Abortion is confusing. What are we trying to hide?"
2 posted on 07/05/2011 5:36:39 AM PDT by rhema ("Break the conventions; keep the commandments." -- G. K. Chesterton)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: rhema

The U.S. Supreme Court should have stayed out of abortion. It’s amazing how DemocRATS are obsessed with using the courts to promote the practice of abortion. If the public really supported the it, the DemocRATS would be OK with the Supreme Court overturning Roe vs. Wade, which would put it back into the hands of the states.

3 posted on 07/05/2011 5:39:09 AM PDT by Clintonfatigued (Illegal aliens collect welfare checks that Americans won't collect)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Coleus; nickcarraway; narses; Mr. Silverback; Canticle_of_Deborah; TenthAmendmentChampion; ...
POWERFUL videos.

Freepers, please forward these and tell all your contacts about them. IMO - they can move people to open their minds to the truth.

Life begins at conception—NOT birth.
Birth is one day in the life of a person who is already nine months old.

Pro-Life PING

Please FreepMail me if you want on or off my Pro-Life Ping List.

4 posted on 07/05/2011 6:10:12 AM PDT by (A Catholic Respect Life Curriculum is available 4 FREE at
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: rhema

Everything from the left is a distortion and a perversion.
They hide the truth, distort it, and make us doubt the truth.

This started with the first “leftist”, the founder of modern “liberalism” (itself a perversion of a word) when he said “did God really say...”

5 posted on 07/05/2011 6:12:58 AM PDT by MrB (The difference between a Humanist and a Satanist - the latter knows whom he's working for)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

Reference material in support.

What does modern science conclude about when human life begins? (Excerpts)

By Dr. John Ankerberg and John Weldon

The complete article is available in
print friendly PDF format at:

What does modern science conclude about when human life begins?

Many people mistakenly feel that abortion is a “religious” issue. But it is not. It is a scientific issue and, specifically, a biological issue. The scientific authorities on when life begins are biologists. But these are often the last people consulted in seeking an answer to the question. What modern science has concluded is crystal clear: Human life begins at conception. This is a matter of scientific fact, not philosophy, speculation, opinion, conjecture, or theory. Today, the evidence that human life begins at conception is a fact so well documented that no intellectually honest and informed scientist or physician can deny it.

In 1973, the Supreme Court concluded in its Roe v. Wade decision that it did not have to decide the “difficult question” of when life begins. Why? In essence, they said, “It is impossible to say when human life begins.”3 The Court misled the public then, and others continue to mislead the public today.

Anyone familiar with recent Supreme Court history knows that two years before Roe V. Wade, in October 1971, a group of 220 distinguished physicians, scientists, and professors submitted an amicus curiae brief (advice to a court on some legal matter) to the Supreme Court. They showed the Court how modern science had already established that human life is a continuum and that the unborn child from the moment of conception on is a person and must be considered a person, like its mother.4 The brief set as its task “to show how clearly and conclusively modern science—embryology, fetology, genetics, perinatology, all of biology—establishes the humanity of the unborn child.”5 For example,

In its seventh week, [the pre-born child] bears the familiar external features and all the internal organs of the adult.... The brain in configuration is already like the adult brain and sends out impulses that coordinate the function of other organs…. The heart beats sturdily. The stomach produces digestive juices. The liver manufactures blood cells and the kidneys begin to function by extracting uric acid from the child’s blood.... The muscles of the arms and body can already be set in motion. After the eighth week… everything is already present that will be found in the full term baby.6

This brief proved beyond any doubt scientifically that human life begins at conception and that “the unborn is a person within the meaning of the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments.”7

In fact, prior to Roe v. Wade, nearly every medical and biological textbook assumed or taught that human life begins at conception. That human life begins at conception was an accepted medical fact, but not necessarily a discussed medical fact. This is why many textbooks did not devote a discussion to this issue. But many others did. For example, Mr. Patrick A. Trueman helped prepare a 1975 brief before the Illinois Supreme Court on the unborn child. He noted,

We introduced an affidavit from a professor of medicine detailing 19 textbooks on the subject of embryology used in medical schools today which universally agreed that human life begins at conception… those textbooks agree that is when human life begins. The court didn’t strike that down—the court couldn’t strike that down because there was a logical/biological basis for that law.8

Thus, even though the Supreme Court had been properly informed as to the scientific evidence, they still chose to argue that the evidence was insufficient to show the pre-born child was fully human. In essence, their decision merely reflected social engineering and opinion, not scientific fact. Even during the growing abortion debate in 1970, the editors of the scientific journal California Medicine noted the “curious avoidance of the scientific fact, which everyone really knows, that human life begins at conception and is continuous whether intra- or extra-uterine until death.”9

Even 25 years after the abortion revolution that politicized scientific opinion, medical texts today still often assume or affirm that human life begins at conception. For example, Keith L. Moore is professor and chairman of the Department of Anatomy at the University of Toronto Faculty of Medicine. His text, The Developing Human: Clinically Oriented Embryology, is widely used in core courses in medical embryology. This text asserts:

The processes by which a child develops from a single cell are miraculous….

Human development is a continuous process that begins when an ovum from a female is fertilized by a sperm from a male. Growth and differentiation transform the zygote, a single cell... into a multicellular adult human being.10

The reference to the “miraculous processes in a purely secular text is not surprising. Even a single strand of DNA from a human cell contains information equivalent to a library of 1,000 volumes. The complexity of the zygote itself according to Dr. Hymie Gordon, chief geneticist at the Mayo Clinic, “is so great that it is beyond our comprehension.”11 In a short nine months’ time, one fertilized ovum grows into 6,000 million cells that become a living, breathing person.

Further, medical dictionaries and encyclopedias all affirm that the embryo is human. Among many we could cite are Dorland’s Illustrated Medical Dictionary, Tuber’s Cyclopedic Medical Dictionary, and the Encyclopedia and Dictionary of Medicine, Nursing and Allied Health, which defines the embryo as “the human young from the time of fertilization of the ovum until the beginning of the third month.”12

In 1981, the United States Congress conducted hearings to answer the question, “When does human life begin?” A group of internationally known scientists appeared before a Senate judiciary subcommittee.13 The U.S. Congress was told by Harvard University Medical School’s Professor Micheline Matthews-Roth, “In biology and in medicine, it is an accepted fact that the life of any individual organism reproducing by sexual reproduction begins at conception....”14

Dr. Watson A. Bowes, Jr., of the University of Colorado Medical School, testified that “the beginning of a single human life is from a biological point of view a simple and straightforward matter—the beginning is conception. This straightforward biological fact should not be distorted to serve sociological, political or economic goals.”15

Dr. Alfred Bongiovanni of the University of Pennsylvania Medical School noted: “The standard medical texts have long taught that human life begins at conception.”16

He added: “I am no more prepared to say that these early stages represent an incomplete human being than I would be to say that the child prior to the dramatic effects of puberty... is not a human being. This is human life at every stage albeit incomplete until late adolescence.”17

Dr. McCarthy De Mere, who is a practicing physician as well as a law professor at the University of Tennessee, testified: “The exact moment of the beginning [of] personhood and of the human body is at the moment of conception.”18

World-famous geneticist Dr. Jerome Lejeune, professor of fundamental genetics at the University of Descarte, Paris, France, declared, “each individual has a very unique beginning, the moment of its conception.”19

Dr. Lejeune also emphasized: “The human nature of the human being from conception to old age is not a metaphysical contention, it is plain experimental evidence.”20

The chairman of the Department of Medical Genetics at the Mayo Clinic, Professor Hymie Gordon, testified, “By all the criteria of modern molecular biology, life is present from the moment of conception.”21

He further emphasized: “now we can say, unequivocally, that the question of when life begins… is an established scientific fact…. It is an established fact that all life, including human life, begins at the moment of conception.”22

At that time the U.S. Senate proposed Senate Bill 158, called the “Human Life Bill.” These hearings, which lasted eight days, involving 57 witnesses, were conducted by Senator John East. This Senate report concluded:

Physicians, biologists, and other scientists agree that conception marks the beginning of the life of a human being—a being that is alive and is a member of the human species. There is overwhelming agreement on this point in countless medical, biological, and scientific writings.23

In 1981, only a single scientist disagreed with the majority’s conclusion, and he did so on philosophical rather than scientific grounds. In fact, abortion advocates, although invited to do so, failed to produce even one expert witness who would specifically testify that life begins at any other point than conception.24

Many other biologists and scientists agree that life begins at conception. All agree that there is no point of time or interval of time between conception and birth when the unborn is anything but human.

Professor Roth of Harvard University Medical School has emphasized, “It is incorrect to say that the biological data cannot be decisive…. It is scientifically correct to say that an individual human life begins at conception, when the egg and sperm join to form the zygote, and that this developing human always is a member of our species in all stages of its life.”25

In conclusion, we agree with pioneer medical researcher, Landrum B. Shettles, M.D., Ph.D., that, “There is one fact that no one can deny; human beings begin at conception.”26

Again, let us stress that this is not a matter of religion, it is solely a matter of science. Scientists of every religious view and no religious view—agnostic, Jewish, Buddhist, atheist, Christian, Hindu, etc.—all agree that life begins at conception. This explains why, for example, the International Code of Medical Ethics asserts: “A doctor must always bear in mind the importance of preserving human life from the time of conception until death.”27

This is also why the Declaration of Geneva holds physicians to the following: “I will maintain the utmost respect for human life from the time of conception; even under threat, I will not use my medical knowledge contrary to the laws of humanity.”28 These statements can be found in the World Medical Association Bulletin for April 1949 (vol.1, p. 22) and January 1950 (vol. 2, p. 5). In 1970, the World Medical Association again reaffirmed the Declaration of Geneva.29

What difference does it make that human life begins at conception? The difference is this: If human life begins at conception, then abortion is the killing of a human life.

To deny this fact is scientifically impossible.30

6 posted on 07/05/2011 6:13:13 AM PDT by (A Catholic Respect Life Curriculum is available 4 FREE at
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]


My memory COULD be faulty. Many, many years ago when my ship was stationed in JAPAN, I was surprised to learn (I think) that the Japanese seemed to count the “pre-born” term as part of a person’s age. I’m talking about a REAL long time ago.
What triggered my asking that Japanese mother, was my inability to understand how a 2(!) year old baby could be that small. I admit to being surprised at the quality of her English as she explained the Japanese way.
Back then, it made NO sense to me, but considering that life itself begins at conception, it would make sense.
Anyone else remember that?

7 posted on 07/05/2011 7:28:32 AM PDT by CaptainAmiigaf (NY TIMES: "We print the news as it fits our views")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: CaptainAmiigaf

“Anyone else remember that?”

Yes. I remember reading, years ago, that in some parts of the world especially in Asia, they count age from conception, not birth.

8 posted on 07/05/2011 7:57:47 AM PDT by KrisKrinkle (Blessed be those who know the depth and breadth of their ignorance. Cursed be those who don't.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: CaptainAmiigaf

My son’s wonderful wife is a Korean/American Lady. Her family counts(counted) age from conception. She has become ‘americanized’ tot he point of counting from birth (but her Korean is still clear and fluent).

9 posted on 07/05/2011 9:04:13 AM PDT by MHGinTN (Some, believing they can't be deceived, it's nigh impossible to convince them when they're deceived.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

Thank you for posting this article. You are quite correct that no scientist or doctor would ever deny the basic facts of human development and that it begins at the moment of conception. The way that the Supreme Court - made up of many liberal (even at that time) thinkers who listened more to the voices of feminism and women's rights organizations than to their own consciences - made their decision it was not based upon that knowledge. It had to be pushed to the side in favor of a "right to privacy" issue. When Norma McCorvey (Jane Roe) was used by those who sought a universal “right” to abortion, she was first presented as a woman pregnant by rape. They wanted a ruling that made an exception for women who were pregnant against their consent. Ms. McCorvey had a previous pregnancy that resulted in her child being adopted and she got pregnant again, not by rape, but by a consensual sexual relationship. Her lawyers - all feminists - ignored the facts of that and continued to argue for exceptions in the case of rape or incest. When that camel's nose was let into the tent, then it was only a short time before other reasons could be also given as exceptions.

The judges in the Supreme Court overruled a Texas law against abortion that prevented McCorvey from acquiring an abortion. They reasoned that if a pregnancy could be terminated because of how it began, then other exceptions must also be considered. Of course, this neglected to even consider the point of the rights of the human life and essentially ruled that a woman's needs were more compelling. Once an exception could be made based upon conditions of how the pregnancy occurred, then it was only a matter of further prodding that the mother's “health” could also be factored it. The Doe vs. Bolton case furthered defined health as anything that would cause the mother harm and they included not just physical health, but financial, mental, societal and the age of the mother. That has resulted in the conditions we have today where abortion is legal at any time during the pregnancy and for any reason. It is abortion on demand - just as those behind it all envisioned.

By allowing for rape and incest - conditions even “Conservatives” have allowed - there was no going back since the rights of the person, the human life, were never considered. If an unborn baby can be killed because of his or her father's actions, then he/she can be killed for any reason. The rights innate to all human life are not made available to the unborn and, until this is changed, the “right” to abortion will never be removed.

10 posted on 07/05/2011 7:37:56 PM PDT by boatbums ( God is ready to assume full responsibility for the life wholly yielded to Him.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794 is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson