Posted on 07/05/2012 8:52:24 AM PDT by rhema
It’s hard not to blame the influence of technology for the seemingly inexorable spread of the culture of death. Accurate and safe prenatal testing has led to the destruction of an estimated 90 percent of unborn children diagnosed with Down syndrome. Sonograms reveal that the sex of yet-to-be-born children has led to a “small-h” holocaust against girls in places such as China and India, where boys are often preferred.
But technology can also be a huge advantage in the fight to recognize and protect the sanctity of human life — every human life. For example, pro-lifers have worked diligently to place sonogram machines into pregnancy care clinics, and the presence of these high-tech wonders—which clearly show the humanity of the fetus—has no doubt contributed mightily to a substantial drop in the abortion rate, as well as a marked increase in the percentage of Americans who consider themselves to be pro-life.
It seems that our technological prowess doesn’t so much corrupt our hearts as reveal what’s in them.
You can see this principle in action in a recent article in Slate magazine. The writer, Allison Benedikt, recounts “the latest in baby-making fads,” such as midwives and birth photographers. But what really gets her attention: “Pregnant woman are Photoshopping sonograms onto their naked stomach glamour-shots.”
Imagine Demi Moore’s famous Vanity Fair cover pose with a representation of the growing human life inside her for all to see.
For Benedikt, such uses of technology are troubling — even “bad for women.” She writes, “…the more we treat fetuses like people — including them in our family photo shoots, tagging them on our Facebook walls, giving them their own Twitter accounts — the harder it will be to deny that they are people when the next, say, personhood amendment comes up, with legislators and activists arguing that ‘the unborn child’ inside a pregnant woman’s womb should have the same rights as the living among us.”
In other words, don’t believe what your lying eyes tell you about fetuses, because if we start viewing them as people, those mean ol’ anti-choicers might start demanding that we treat them that way.
This approach to the unborn — “nothing to see here, folks, just move along” — says so much about the pro-choice worldview. But it gets worse. Writing about the recent congressional debate over sex-selection abortion, instead of bemoaning the elimination of millions of future women, Benedikt urges pro-choicers to embrace sex-selection abortion.
She writes: “No matter how many ultrasound pics get posted to Facebook, these are fetuses with female genitals or male genitals — not little girls and little boys. If pro-choicers object to aborting because of the sex of the fetus, aren’t we then saying that abortion is ‘murdering’ girls? That is not the case to make if your goal is to protect abortion rights. Gulp for a second if you must, then get over it.” Wow!
Chuck Colson always said that “worldview matters.” And to judge the validity of any worldview, follow it to its logical conclusion. Thanks to Ms. Benedikt and those like her, the pro-choice worldview’s logical conclusion is there for all to see: In order to maintain the supreme good of a woman’s choice, pro-choicers must always and everywhere deny the humanity of the unborn child. Even when their own eyes tell them otherwise.
Eric Metaxas is best known for two biographies: Bonhoeffer: Pastor, Martyr, Prophet, Spy about Dietrich Bonhoeffer, and Amazing Grace: William Wilberforce and the Heroic Campaign to End Slavery about William Wilberforce. He also wrote books and videos for VeggieTales.
She [Benedikt] writes: “No matter how many ultrasound pics get posted to Facebook, these are fetuses with female genitals or male genitals — not little girls and little boys. If pro-choicers object to aborting because of the sex of the fetus, aren’t we then saying that abortion is ‘murdering’ girls? That is not the case to make if your goal is to protect abortion rights. Gulp for a second if you must, then get over it.” Wow!
Chuck Colson always said that “worldview matters.” And to judge the validity of any worldview, follow it to its logical conclusion. Thanks to Ms. Benedikt and those like her, the pro-choice worldview’s logical conclusion is there for all to see: In order to maintain the supreme good of a woman’s choice, pro-choicers must always and everywhere deny the humanity of the unborn child. Even when their own eyes tell them otherwise.
Eeeeeeeeew! I just threw up in my mouth a little.
I think this is part of a left-wing conspiracy to make pregnancy seem like a disgusting psychosis, thereby promoting the HHS "preventative" care mandate.
A demonic version of magic thinking ... denying these are human beings is crucial to defending the murder of these little ones.
Women like Abby Johnson, former Planned Parenthood director, testify to the power of women's seeing the truth:
"As many as 8 of 10 women who view ultrasounds and view the heartbeat of their child change their minds about abortion. . . Abortion facilities don't want women to make that maternal connection because then they lose money if the woman chooses life. . . Almost all the women walking in to have an abortion think it's a baby; when they ask you questions, they say, 'What about my baby?' They call it a baby, but the clinic workers are not going to respond in that same kind of language."
Kathleen Eaton, founder and CEO of Birth Choice Health Clinics in Southern California, writes:
"Historically, only 30 percent of our abortion-minded women changed their minds. However, by introducing women to their babies through ultrasound, more than 72 percent choose life."
Oh, I agree that the increased use of ultrasound is a tremendous aid for people in recognizing the humanity and the right to life of unborn children.
It was just the particular visual use that I found unpleasant, starting with “naked belly glamour photos,” irrespective of “window on the womb” Photoshopping.
Freepmail wagglebee to subscribe or unsubscribe from the moral absolutes ping list.
FreeRepublic moral absolutes keyword search
Wow, that’s amazing! I see QR codes on everything these days, it seems like. I just have a phone-type phone, so I’ve never known what they did.
***************************
Excellent observation.
Like the “Time” cover of the woman breastfeeding the great big preschooler: the effect is to damn-by-association normal mothers who go through pregnancy, birth, and nursing without bizarre exhibitionism.
**********************************
Is that what that was about? I'm not surprised.
I guess I’m missing why belly shots are offensive. If this helps women identify with their babies, then I’m all for it.
We’re not talking porn here. Although it is a bit provocative. Which again if it helps men and women idenify with their children or puts pregnancy in a positive light isnt going to bother me one bit.
True, leftmedia organizations like Time are going to try to put a negative spin on anything to do with families. But then again, was even that shot all that offensive? I really don’t have a problem with breastfeeding in public. If mothers want to breastfeed their kids till they’re 4 or 5, do I care? Not really.
Prolife does not mean puritan in outlook. I’m happily prolife, promarriage, and prosex.
True, leftmedia organizations like Time are going to try to put a negative spin on anything to do with families. But then again, was even that shot all that offensive? I really don’t have a problem with breastfeeding in public. If mothers want to breastfeed their kids till they’re 4 or 5, do I care? Not really.
Prolife does not mean puritan in outlook. I’m happily prolife, promarriage, and prosex.
It was intended to be shocking and provocative, or it would not have been on the cover of a magazine whose circulation is headed for the sea bottom. It was the picture as a picture that was inappropriate, not the fact of nursing a 3-year-old child.
Even if this were Africa or the South Pacific, where open breastfeeding of older children is common, I think the pose of the skinny blonde pulling off her tank top while the big kid in army boots stared at the camera would still have been shocking, because it is not the normal behavior of nursing mothers and children anywhere. It is, as I said above, bizarre exhibitionism.
There are millions of women walking about being pregnant and clothed; no doubt their husbands see them undressed with (one hopes) some fondness. There are many women breastfeeding, even older infants/toddlers, and nobody gives it a thought because they are not making a public spectacle.
I am, of course, only offering my own opinion. My opinion is that sex, childbearing, and nursing babies call for a certain amount of privacy, and that the public display of photography thereof is not enough privacy.
I think that the photo actually does our side some good. Although I’m sure that was NOT the intent of the leftmedia rag that ran it. To me, running photos like that or having women very publicly breastfeed their children has an innoculative effect. Sure, it’ll raise eyebrows the first time. And maybe the second. But after a few times it just isn’t a big deal.
I don’t think anyone out there is advocating that women MUST breastfeed in public. But if they want to, why should it be a problem? Its a biological function and preferable from a health perspective. And I think it has the effect of demonstrating that children are important.
I agree that sex acts should be private. Pregnancy and breastfeeding however...I really think that’s up to the people involved. To me there is nothing particularly offensive about a swollen belly or a child being fed the way God intended.
As a matter of fact, I’m pretty darn happy to see a swollen belly. It rarely fails to make me smile. That’s one less that the culture of death got to. If mom wants to photograph it or show it off to the whole world, then that’s just fine and dandy. Women who are proud of the life that they bear within them do our side a lot of good. Heck I hope it becomes a fashion.
Our side does not help itself in my opinion by being prudish.
I agree with you, but what real women do in real life is different from the media manipulation. The general run of comments on FR were in the "I want to be that kid!" vein, which is hardly respectful of mothers, or "No child that age should be nursing!" which is contrary to most of human practice from prehistory until just recently. (It's funny how a story about breastfeeding makes every boob who's ever seen a boob think he's an expert on infant nutrition!)
If they showed me breastfeeding, all one would see is a stoutish woman of 40-odd holding a baby. The clothes I'm wearing on my profile page are nursing outfits from "Motherwear," and the boy with the red curls nursed until he was past 2 - everywhere I went - without a single titillating display.
In summary, I think that regular women's nursing their babies while going through daily life, including in public, is positive. People often notice I have a baby under a blanket or covered by my blouse and smile at me. (It was weird, though, when someone asked if the baby I was obviously nursing was my grandchild!)
However, displays like the "Time" cover stir up viewers, in one way or another, in a way that's not positive for the average mother, because (among other issues) it promotes the idea that breastfeeding is a sexual event, rather than a nutritional activity.
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.