The news article describes how some feel it is a pro-life movie. I’d say that’s probably true, because it’s usually pro-lifers who want to draw attention to the pro-abortion status quo we live in and promote debate. But there’s always the question of how that is done, and whether it is an intellectually honest film or not… and I can’t tell that from the trailer. (As a side note, I’ve always quite liked the Cranberries and now I learn Dolores O’Riordan, lead singer, is critical of abortion. Good news. We need more movie stars, singers, and generally famous people to stand up and act as role models, thereby empowering more young women to also say–hey, I’m against abortion.)
It’s not the first procedure of its kind, but it still makes the news. ABC News called it surgery on the “tiniest, most fragile of patients; those still in the womb.”
Doctors, using new technology to work inside the mother’s uterus, separate the blood vessels that connect the twins.
[The mother], sedated but awake, underwent surgery during her 22nd week of pregnancy.
During the surgery, doctors entered the amniotic sack using a kind of miniature “telescope.” Occasionally, to their surprise, a fetus will actually grab on to the scope in the middle of the procedure.
It’s the most simplistic reasoning there is to being against abortion. When it’s wanted, the life in the womb is treated by pediatric surgeons at a children’s hospital. When it’s ‘unwanted’, well, you know.
Pro-abortion advocates, though, have a name for recognizing what’s actually in the womb: fetus fetish.
The legislature of South Dakota is insincere and is acting out a fetus fetish to make themselves feel morally superior rather than focusing their scarce resources on child care for working mothers, education, and medical care for children.
(I don’t know about South Dakota, but Quebec has the highest rate of abortion in North America. Yet, we are home to daycares-a-plenty, an impressive array of educational options for women, and three of the country’s eleven children’s hospitals.)
When I think about all the lives snuffed out before they make it out of the womb, I don’t feel morally superior. I might feel a bit like I’m screaming at the top of my lungs in the middle of a crowded room while no one pays any mind to me, but I don’t equate that so much with superiority. In fact, if any one of you is looking for a glamour job – one where others recognize you primarily for your unsurpassed moral standards – skip the pro-life section of the classifieds.
South Dakota has no more abortion providers. Why?
Starting Friday, doctors in South Dakota must tell women seeking abortions …”that the abortion will terminate the life of a whole, separate, unique, living human being.” Women also would have to be told they have a right to continue a pregnancy and that abortion may cause them psychological harm, including thoughts of suicide.
So the only abortion doctor left in the state up and quit. Why? Because he thinks none of that is true. As we’ve covered in the past, medical textbooks assert that a new life begins at the moment of conception. Peer reviewed journals and respected studies teach us that there are infact serious psychological risks associated with abortion.
Don’t know about you, but I don’t want a doctor to come near me if he hasn’t kept up on his reading. I like my doctors smart.