Wednesday, November 16, 2005

Redefining and Reshaping the Debate

The following quote is from "Postmodern Self-assessment: Pretending Doesn't Make It So" by Steve Singleton.

Abraham Lincoln once asked a stubborn disputant, "How many legs does a cow
have?" "Why, four, of course!" was the reply. Lincoln leaned forward and looked
the man in the eye, "Well then, how many would it have if we called its tail a
leg?" With a sneer, the man answered, "Five!" "Nope!" said Lincoln. "It would
still have four, because calling a tail a leg doesn't make it so."

During my time as a member of the South Dakota Task Force to Study Abortion, I have come to find that one thing the pro-abortion side is particularly adept at is redefining terminology and changing the complexion of the debate. I began compiling a list of some of the phrases discussed by abortion advocates. Allow me to share some of them with you.

One phrase I was not familiar with prior to the task force proceedings was that of "abortion care." Abortion care....oxymoron? I think so.

The task force discussion oftentimes turned to the reasons why women seek abortions, or "abortion care," as some would call it. Answers ranged from "unplanned pregnancies" to "unwanted pregnancies" to "unintended pregnancies" to "accidental pregnancies." I wonder, what is the genesis of an "accidental pregnancy."

When Planned Parenthood ushered in some college students from USD for the public testimony portion of the proceedings, a common theme was the need for "comprehensive sexuality education" in the schools. They said such a program was one answer to cutting down on unplanned, unwanted, unintended pregnancies. During their testimony, I learned that nowadays some people talk about "STI's" instead of "STD's". STI is short for Sexually Transmitted Infection.

It wasn't long ago when "Venereal Diseases" were renamed "Sexually Transmitted Diseases." Now we've ushered in a new day. Apparently the enlightened individuals in the abortion industry are shifting the conversation to minimize the reality that there are consequences to engaging in promiscuous sexual activity outside marriage. Either that, or maybe I haven't received the latest update. Can we now write off the cancer caused by HPV? Has somebody discovered a cure for herpes? How about HIV/AIDS?

Could it really be true that the venereal diseases of old have become mere infections that can be cleared up with a visit to the doctor when the contraceptives marketed by Planned Parenthood fail to protect against them? Well, since we know that isn't the case, then why is there such a concerted effort to change the tone of the conversation?

The task force heard testimony from post-abortive women that when they had their abortions, they were told it was nothing but a blob of tissue being removed. Of course, the advent of ultrasound technology proved that theory wrong, so the conversation shifted over the years. In a video Kate Looby brought from the Planned Parenthood office, abortion is described as emptying the contents of the uterus.

In other committee discussion, I heard abortion advocates speak of a "potential baby" and "potential children." (I wonder when the doctor listens to the heartbeat of an unborn child if the doctor refers to it as a potential heartbeat. Further, when a cat is pregnant, why do people say she's going to have kittens, rather than suggesting that she's carrying potential kittens? A better question, yet, is why are there laws forbidding people from destroying the eggs of bald eagles? What sets apart (and requires protection for) "potential bald eagles" still inside their eggs from unborn human babies as they grow and develop in the womb?)

Dr. Marvin Buehner, an OB/GYN from Rapid City testified that he has spent the last eighteen years of his life "basically dedicated to women's health care. At this time, the vast majority of my practice is obstetrics." He was called upon by the pro-abortion side of the debate to share his expertise with the task force. He stated, "While I respect the opinions and positions of those who believe that life begins at conception, for me the question of when meaningful human life begins is a difficult one." When asked to clarify his position, he said that he has "respect for those who believe that--and are convinced that--life begins at conception. I don't necessarily share that view, cuz I'm--I don't know."

Seeking further clarification, task force member Dr. John Stransky asked whether Dr. Buehner's testimony was that "human life does not begin with the fertilization of the ovum and the creation of a zygote."

Buehner replied, "I'm saying that I don't know when meaningful human life, from the standpoint of the question of abortion or other ethical issues regarding prenatal care occurs. I don't know the answer...."

That seems to be a lot of confusion and uncertainty expressed by a gentleman whose livelihood has been women's health care and obstetrics for 18 years. Maybe he has never seen the reaction of a couple who has found out they are expecting their firstborn baby. Perhaps he has never witnessed the response of somebody who has lost her baby. Whether or not the pregnancy is planned or unplanned, it will certainly illicit a response. Obviously, at the point the individual or couple learns news about a pregnancy, the little life has some sort of meaning to them. It is curious how an 18-year veteran in the field has failed to pick up on the significance (or "meaningful"ness) of life.

Retired Methodist Pastor Dick Pittinger also testified on the pro-abortion side of the debate. He weighed in on the topic of the beginning of life, saying, "Immediately after life does begin--at conception--that's a fact. Now, human life in its fullness is another matter, and its at that point, of course, where we have a difference of opinion." He continued that another matter "is the endless debate as to when a human--or when a being--receives a soul."

Since the 1970's, science has improved by leaps and bounds. As science has changed, so, too, have the arguments of the pro-abortion side, in order to protect its interests in keeping the business of abortion legal. Unborn babies used to be called "blobs of tissue," but when science proved otherwise, the paradigm shifted. Now abortion activists have to come up with new terms and ideas to espouse to the public. Contents of a uterus; fetus; potential baby; potential children; meaningful life; organic life that is not yet life in its fullness or that which lacks a's all smoke and mirrors. All the while, the pro-abortion interests continue to spread their message of sex without consequences....and when consequences arise, they'll take care of them.

Word to the wise....Call them what you will. Unborn lives are still lives, and sexually transmitted infections are still diseases.


At November 17, 2005 8:17 AM, Anonymous Will said...

Whether or not life begins at conception is a philosophical question which can only be answered through personal introspection. The science is inconclusive; it can be used to support either the pro-life or pro-choice argument.

Ultimately, your view that life begins at conception is a faith-based opinion.

Just like the horse with five legs, calling a fetus a life--a life distinguishable from the life of its mother--doesn't necessarily make it so, no matter how fervently you believe it.

At November 18, 2005 10:11 AM, Blogger Brock said...


Science is not on the pro-abortion side of the argument. Scientific advances now allow for the detection of the unique DNA of the single celled zygote.

Allow me to pose a question, Will. What was the genesis of your life? (I would like some clarification as to when the point you believe your life began. That would help me to understand your side of the argument.)

At March 24, 2006 11:49 AM, Blogger concerned woman said...

Dr. Buehner is my OB during my second high-risk pregnancy. He saved my first high-risk pregnancy from becoming an extremely long NICU stay and our babies are now very healthy 2 year-olds. I resent the fact that you would challenge his intelligence and medical knowledge since you obviously have not been in a position that would require his care. He is a genuine and caring doctor and after what he was able to do with my first pregnancy, I would and do trust this man with my life and the lives of my unborn children. Dr. Buehner does not push his personal views on anyone and how he personally feels about when life begins is none of your business or anyone else's. It does not change his expertise or knowledge in the field of women's health. The women of South Dakota should feel greatful to have a man like Dr. Buehner who is not afraid to stand up against ignorant people like you who are pushing your religious/personal views to speak for all women of SD. I have thanked God every day for bringing Dr. Buehner into my life because my babies that are here are alive and well thanks to him and the babies I'm carrying are thriving thanks to him.

If you have 18 years of medical expertise in this field and would like to comment based on the medical knowledge and experience that you have gained over time, you may go head-to-head with Dr. Buehner and question his personal views. Science can't even prove that life begins at conception so who are you to question it? What scientific educational or work experience do you have to speak on this subject? Since you obviously don't have the expertise that he or any other OB has, maybe you should keep your personal views to yourself because you really sound ignorant and desperate.

One last comment I have about this ridiculous law is that the title proves how uneducated and inexperienced in the medical field regarding women's health the legislators are. Come on, who are you kidding..."Women's Health and Human Rights" The title is redundant as it does absolutely nothing to protect my health and I'll be damned if I will let any person without an education beyond high school tell me that my expert OB cannot treat me and my health.


Post a Comment

<< Home