CONNECT
OtherWords / Op-Ed
Published: Monday 6 February 2012
“GOP lawmakers are howling to overturn the EPA’s mercury regulations.”
Save the Babies
Why do the Republicans in Congress hate unborn babies?
Yeah, I know they profess to love the unborn. They even consider them to be "persons" from the very moment of conception.
Yet, whose interest do you think these same politicos have chosen to protect when it comes to regulating an especially nasty industrial toxin that threatens unborn babies?
That nasty substance is mercury, a neurotoxin that spews into our air from old, coal-burning electric power plants. This toxic mercury lands in water, where it's turned into methylmercury, which builds up in fish. Many pregnant women unwittingly eat these contaminated fish, and the methylmercury messes terribly with the emerging nervous systems of their fetuses, producing babies with impaired IQs who are unable to think and learn as they should.
After 20 years of delay forced by lobbyists for utilities, the Environmental Protection Agency finally came out in December with regulations to control the mercury emissions from power plants. Hallelujah — save the babies!
But wait, the lovers of the unborn aren't celebrating this move to stop industry from doing gratuitous damage to children's IQs.
Far from it. GOP lawmakers are now howling to overturn the EPA's mercury regulations. A bunch of them say they want to kill the EPA itself to stop such "governmental interference" in the corporate pursuit of profits. Unborn babies make great politics, but they don't make big campaign donations. The GOP goes with whom it really loves.
How ironic that the defenders of mercury pollution are "mad as a hatter" about the EPA's protection of children. Maybe they don't know that the phrase comes from 19th-century hat makers who used mercury compounds in their work, often causing mental damage that literally drove them mad.
Get Email Alerts from NationofChange
ABOUT Jim Hightower
National radio commentator, writer, public speaker, and author of the book, Swim Against The Current: Even A Dead Fish Can Go With The Flow, Jim Hightower has spent three decades battling the Powers That Be on behalf of the Powers That Ought To Be - consumers, working families, environmentalists, small businesses, and just-plain-folks.
28 comments on "Save the Babies"
Beste Dennis,Bedankt voor je ratecie. Het probleem is meer dat ik (volgens mij) alles heb gedaan zoals het in de instructie stond en dat lukte ook allemaal. Ik dacht dus dat ik klaar was om te downloaden. Ik gooide een nzb bestandje in het mapje nzb, maar toen gebeurde er niets. Nu bedenk ik mij, dat ik nergens de instellingen heb ingevoerd van de server waar ik vandaan download (in mijn geval yabnews). Ik vind op internet nergens een beschrijving hoe ik dit instel voor nzbget.Daarnaast heb ik gelezen van een webinterface (wat mij handig lijkt voor de toegankelijkheid), maar vind ook nergens een instructie hoe dit voor elkaar te krijgen.Op dit punt dacht ik dus dat het me echt niet meer gaat lukken en aangezien je hebt aangegeven dat je niet ingaat op het postprocessing unrarren ed, weet ik ook niet of ik mijn vraag op het juiste forum heb gesteld.
February 11, 2012 5:50am
Hey man, Slavery was a "pro-choice" issue too. Agaisnt slavery, then don't own a slave, but don't tell me I can't own one. It's my democratic right. Stop forcing your moraility on me!
Agaisnt abortion, then don't have one, but don't tell me I can't have one. It's my democratic right. Stop forcing your moraility on me.
Those crazy abolutionists in 1857 were "anti-choice".
Lost in both equations is the victim. There person being made the property of another person.
February 07, 2012 2:38pm
Beth, I agree with you totally. From now on I will refer to all those who think that women should not have a say in what goes on in their own bodies as "anti-choice". Why do the anti-coice people expect walking , talking, and functioning women to take a back seat to a fetus? Is her life not sacred?
I don't believe that they want to shut down the coal burning plants, just control emissions. We would all like to be safe, wouldn't we? Well, making us safe would cut into their profits. So, they will put their lobbyist monies into getting rid of the EPA instead of cleaning up. The Right-Wing Regime is only using the abortion issue as an emotional distraction. If you get fired up by it, you are more likely to side with them about getting rid of the agencies put in place to protect you; giving them free rein to pollute as they like, with no fines and more profits.
February 08, 2012 2:36pm
Jean M Cousins asks if a woman's life is sacred? Of course it is. But when did a woman's life become sacred? Surely she did not make her own life sacred!
Was it only sacred after she came out of the womb? That would deny that she was alive previous to that moment: Her heart had been beating since she was ten weeks old.
Where did that woman's life come from? Her mother participated in her creation, but her mother did not give her life. A woman's sacred life comes from her Creator who gives life. It is her Creator who made that woman's life sacred.
A woman does not "take a back seat to a fetus", but a woman should not pretend that she is the author of life, and that she should decide who should live and who should die.
If the President of the United States is sitting on the bus next to a yowling baby, why should he not throw the baby out of the window? Should the President of the United States take a back seat to a mere infant?
Oh no, one might object. That is different. That is a baby, not a fetus. What is a fetus? Fetus is a magic word that allows you to kill a baby. When does a fetus become a baby? No one can accurately say, and that is why it is a magic word.
February 12, 2012 11:44am
Yes, we can accurately say when a fetus becomes a baby. At conception. It's not a matter of taste or opinion, but a matter of objective scientific fact.
http://www.abort73.com/abortion/medical_testimony/
February 07, 2012 1:43pm
Nuclear fusion is Not available for large-scale deployment. There is no practicable means, now or anywhere on the physics horizon, to maintain the 10-million degree temperature required to fuse two hydrogen atoms into one helium atom, other than in a tiny volume. What IS AVAILABLE RIGHT NOW is the thorium process. It was demonstrated to work safely in the MSRE (Molten Salt Reactor Experiment) at the Oak Ridge National Laboratory in the 1960s. check out www.dirkpublishing.com
February 10, 2012 3:45pm
You are simply under informed. Fusion is currently available for large scale deployment using off-the-shelf technologies. It is simply a matter of doing it!
February 06, 2012 8:36pm
@anono I truly hope you are right about fusion! I agree that if it is possible like you say it has been for 10 years then the human race is literally stupid beyond comprehension for not immediately switching to fusion powered plants. Maybe it could be explained by the fact we have eaten too much mercury courtesy of the coal industry!
February 06, 2012 7:17pm
If all life is sacred then all that supports that life is sacred. Mercury does not contribute to the support of life--just to name one example.
February 06, 2012 7:01pm
Nuclear Fusion, the only safe atomic energy, is and has been available for over a decade for immediate large scale deployment using off the shelf technologies. It's just a matter of retrofitting the existing fossil fuel fired plants with Monkhurst process fusion boilers and turning a few valves. Heat, light, helium and Zero radiation are the by products of the Monkhurst process. The only obstacles preventing an abundance of clean energy for the world are the classic typicals of vanity, greed, arogance and selfishness.
February 06, 2012 6:27pm
Nobody wants mercury in the environment, but everybody wants electrical power. We need to stop this fantasy that our power needs in the U.S. are going to be solved anytime soon with alternative sources. In 2009 45%-47% of the power generated in the US came from coal. In the late 1990s more than 50% of our power came from coal plants, so we've made little progress since then.
So how are we going to get the power from other sources? What do we do when coal plants start closing? Here's our choices:
1. More Hydroelectricity? No.....we're tearing dams down currently, as we have real water concerns, as well as restoring salmon runs (in the west).
2. More Nuclear Power Plants? I don't think so....how do store the spent rods, and who wants a nuclear core meltdown in their backyard.
3. More Solar Plants? Yes..... but they're way too expensive currently and take up significant land area.
4. More Wind Power? Yes...but pretty unreliable, as the wind doesn't blow everyday...no wind, no power, no ultimate solution!
We're already shutting down coal plants because of EPA regulations. Permits for new coal plants are being denied by the EPA as well, as they emit carbon dioxide, a pollutant according to the EPA. The EPA announced in 2007 the "Cross State Air Pollution Rule," which will force the closure of quite a few additional coal plants.
Can't we just have pregnant women not eat fish? I'd like to hear Mr. Hightower's solutions for our energy needs, not his verbal abuse of Republicans. We need people with real ideas that can help...............Anyone?
February 07, 2012 3:49pm
What MCKINLP fails to acknowledge- like most republicans- are the myths that:
1) that we must rely on just a few sources of power (like oil, gas or coal) rather than have multiple sources of energy.
2) for an energy source to be viable, it must be suitable for large-scale production by large energy-producing corporations, and
3) that energy conservation can play only an insignificant role in developing a viable energy supply model for the US.
MCKINLP appears to hold the unexamined presupposition that large scale energy-producing corporations must own the means of energy production for energy production to be efficient. However, when it comes to sustainable energies such as solar thermal, photo voltaic, wind, and geothermal energy production, large scale energy-producing corporations are, as MCKINLP rightfully points out, somewhat inefficient.
What MCKINLP apparently fails to acknowledge is the considerable success achieved when the end user produces their own energy. That is, it is realistically possible to retro fit every housing unit in the US with solar , wind, and geothermal energy production infrastructure so that no additional energy needs to be provided form an outside source. That is every housing single family unit and perhaps every 3-4 family sized units could provide its own energy. Rather than being corporate owned, the energy production infrastructure can be owned by the home owners themselves. I am not advocating doing away with corporate-owned large scale energy production but I am advocating for dramatically reducing its market share.
It may not be possible for multiple family units including high-rise apartment buildings to operate without additional energy provided from the outside. Still a huge portion of energy that is now, for the most part, provided from large-scale corporate-owned oil, gas, and coal sources for private homes could be completely replaced with sustainable energy sources whose infrastructure is owned by the home owner. This would lower the demand of energy provided by traditional oil, gas,and coal companies tremendously.
With respect to large public buildings that cannot generate sufficient infrastructure to generate all the energy they use, they can develop sufficient infrastructure to generate a significant portion of that energy requirement. In such case, much less energy from outside sources would be required- even though a significant percentage still would be- at least for a while.
I think MCKINLP may fail to acknowledge the importance of energy conservation in the energy usage equation. We simply need to conserve energy use by using less of it. European energy use patterns represent the beginning of a model worth emulating. Europeans use far less energy than Americans do, overall. They could use even less. To meet the global demand for energy, we will have to curtail our appetites for energy. Pure and simple. Set thermostats lower, become accustomed to living in cooler temperatures. Do not light and heat unoccupied buildings, and so on.There are many other arenas to focus on with respect to energy conservation.
It seems to me that MCKINLP assumes that sustainable power sources like, solar, wind, geothermal, etc. that by themselves are insufficient (it's true that the sun only shines during the day, wind power only generates electricity when the wind is blowing, etc. ) but his conclusion that these forms of energy could not meet our power needs because, he assumes, we need energy all the time and those energy sources are not available all the time- has been shown to be false. There are many "off-grid" buildings that successfully provide their own energy without reliance on large-scale energy production.
I agree with MCKINLP that sustainable energy sources are not particularly well suited for mass corporate-owned energy production. However I disagree with his conclusion. Rather than say we need to focus our development of energy sources that are suitable for large-scale, corporate-owned production, I think we should focus on small-scale energy producing infrastructure and distribute the ownership of this infrastructure as widely as possible.
February 07, 2012 4:03pm
But Buildings only represents about 30% of the energy use in the US. Transportation uses another 30% or so and agriculture uses about 40%. The use of petroleum-based fertilizers can be completely dispensed with. The knowledge base and practice to do so have existed for years. It is only the agribusiness lobbying mechanism that pressures congress to not promote expansion of these alternative technologies.
We need to begin to shift our consumption patterns to eating locally grown crops. Urban agriculture is beginning to rise but it cannot compete against the huge subsidies given to agribusiness by the US government. These monies should simply be shifted from agribusiness to local agricultural production including community supported agriculture, urban farms, and larger organic farms in the outlaying areas around cities. Localizing agriculture will make a huge reduction in energy use.
The transportation sector is the most difficult. Let's face it- when it comes to portable energy, oil is a very efficient fuel! We can require the efficiency of motor vehicles to be much more efficient than they are now- we've made some regulatory progress- but we have a long way to go to catch up and surpass to the Europeans and Japanese.
If campaign finance reform actually came to pass and the US Congress began supporting alternatives in the building, agricultural and transportation sectors in the US economy, we could use existing technologies to curtail energy use in a tremendous way.
February 07, 2012 1:48pm
@ MCKINLP and ANONO,
My reply at 1:43 pm, Feb 7.
February 06, 2012 5:52pm
If only we lived in a world where in all life is sacred and intrinsically valued, then even with the liberation of the womb from tyranny and intrusion, there would be few if any misconceptions.
February 06, 2012 5:25pm
The choice comes before conception.
What terminolgy should actually be changed is "birth control" for those who advocate for it believe in neither birth, nor in control.
February 06, 2012 7:19pm
Yours is a very selfserving, abusive and narrowminded statement. It may not be in your version of the world, but for most, sex is a part of a healthy loving relationship. Many who practice conception prevention do so out of loving concern for the life they may bring into this absolutely fucked up world.
February 06, 2012 2:01pm
I think the entire idea of 'pro-life' versus 'pro-choice' is ridiculous. I'm tired of these arguments about liberals forcing and funding abortions. It's pro-choice, not pro-abortion. It's not anti-baby, it's pro-constitution. Illegalizing abortion isn't going to drop the rate of abortions, it's going to reverse the effect that legalizing it had, SAFE abortions over dangerous back-alley abortions that can kill both mother and unborn or leave an unborn child maimed, horribly disfigured, or retarded. And to protect the rights of mothers in pregnancy that will not result in a viable birth, but may kill the mother as a result of continuing the pregnancy. Not only that, but much of the legislation written to illegalize abortion, is written in such a way as to also ban birth control because of how most forms of birth control work. Your religious beliefs and morality has no place being forced into MY home through the legal system until it directly harms YOU or strips you of your own constitutional rights.IMO 'Pro-Life' should rename itself to 'Anti-Choice', because THAT is what they are pushing for, not the lives of others.
February 07, 2012 3:44pm
Where is abortion written into the Constitution?
Abortion was legal in varying degrees in 20 states before Roe v Wade. By creating an abortion "right" out of whole cloth, the Supreme Court made it impossible for the people to decide what the law should be. Yay Democracy!
It is a fallacy to believe that morals can be stripped away from the law. The law is always going to be implementing somebody's morals. It is impossible to say that anything is "right" or "wrong" without making a moral judgment. The very idea of a human "right" comes from the natural law belief that God gave these rights to us.
It is fallacious to say that a mother has the "right" to kill her baby because that doesn't affect anyone else. It affects her baby because she killed it.
If we are going to talk about renaming, pro-choice should be called "pro-Death" because they promote the killing of babies.
February 06, 2012 2:00pm
Excellent point, Marlowe - It would likely be more accurate and fair to say that Republicans care about the unborn until they are born, at which point they don't particularly care about babies or children. Whereas the Democrats only care about unborn babies retroactively - about the fetal states of babies and children that actually do come to be born. Neither description is particularly flattering. However, one might make the case that the Democrats are more consistent - at least they care about the people they care about (people who get born) over their entire lifespan.
February 06, 2012 1:41pm
Well said Mr. Marlowe
February 06, 2012 1:36pm
Divide and Conquer. I won't defend the hypocrisy of the Repugs, but I don't condone it when it comes from the left. To my mind it is just as hypocritical for the dems to pretend that they care about poisoning unborn babies, and then to fund abortions and keep it beyond the bounds of legislation by declaring it a "right".
The sad part about this article is that it makes the reader believe that one cannot be pro-life and anti-mercury. As if. Hightower is conflating the totally different issues of abortion and of mercury in the water. Hightower has latched onto the fact that the Repugs are more often anti-abortion, and more often careless about the environment. While we are at it, they are also hypocritical about being anti-abortion and being pro-war. But of course he can't talk about that because the dems are also pro-war. The whole hypocritcal federal government is full of pro-war zombie vampires.
I wonder if Hightower has ever tried to look beyond to false dem/rep paradigm: The fake election parade of clowns that the corporate media talks about non-stop so that we will continue to believe that we live in a democracy, and ignore that the federal government now can read our mail, tap our phones, indefinitely detain us, torture us and kill us without any legal recourse.
I am definitely anti-abortion because I think that human life is sacred. I've seen pictures of little babies in their mother's wombs: babies with faces and all of their fingers and toes. These babies can feel pain. Some people think that we should call that a fetus, and by re-naming it they imagine that they can tear it into pieces with impunity.
I also think that it is wrong to put poison into the water. It is not only wrong, but incredibly stupid. I think that the people who do this are just greedy bastards. At the bottom of it, most of the poisoning of our environment is due to greedy bastards. They are so greedy that they poison the very water that their children drink.
Yes, it is hypocritical to pretend to care about saving unborn babies and then turn around and poison newborn babies. It is also hypocritical to pretend to care about saving the unborn from drinking poison, and then turn around and force everyone to fund abortion.
February 06, 2012 3:31pm
A well written piece, Marlowe, but completely misses the point. Hightower is saying simply that you have some sort of hypocrisy going on when it's ok to damage babies, but not ok to abort fetuses. Those who oppose abortion but do not oppose practices that harm the brains of babies are simply hypocrites. And you only point that out in your conclusion--while that is his only point.
You wrongly point out that human life is scared because of the little faces on fetuses. This is simply emotion washing a topic that needs a huge infusion of analytic thinking. The problem of abortion is not that there is a human face on a fetus. It's about-- and always has been about-- two topics and two topics only, both from a scientific and ethical perspective, and neither from the emotional: (1) Personhood (only people have rights) and (2) Rights: a woman's right not to choose to allow her body to be used by another human.
You're all over "not having everyone fund abortion" which is a false statement anyway, but what about forcing females who become pregnant to allow another human being to live off of her body for nine months. When we put it like it is, leave out the emotion, deal with the facts, it sounds pretty draconian doesn't it? Forcing a person to allow another person to use her body for nine months.
In conclusion, abortion is about two and only two rational points: (1) Only people have rights (and fetuses are not people, although they are human) and (2) a woman should have the right to choose not to allow other humans to use her body, even if they are cute and cuddly. Any other form of argument will prove to be invalid- and at it's foundation based on dogma or emotion.
February 07, 2012 3:29pm
You missed the point that it Hightower's phrasing of his argument conflates the issues of opposition to abortion and supporting mercury. Hightower's message could be written in reverse by a Repug and no one would know the difference. My point was that it is just as hypocritical to abort fetuses and pretend to care about the unborn being harmed by mercury. I stated it in the introduction and the conclusion.
I didn't say that human life is sacred because babies have faces. It was long ago stated by our founding fathers to be "self-evident" that all mankind are endowed by "their Creator" with an "unalienable Right to Life". I only offered physical appearance as proof of the fact that a baby in the womb is just as human as a baby outside the womb. Babies who were young enough to be legally aborted have survived outside the womb. e.g. James Elgin Gill was born after on 21 weeks, five days. He will be 25 in May.
Your statement of the law seems to be your own. The conflict of rights within Roe v Wade was the mother's right to "privacy", which is not stated in the Bill of Rights, but rather hinted at by other rights; and the baby's right to life, i.e. the state's responsibility to protect the baby. (The state has a responsibility to protect human life, and that is why it prosecutes murderers.) In Roe, the court invented the law out of whole cloth. There is no logical or legal basis for not deciding that life begins at conception. Prior to Roe, the People of the individual states, could decide whether abortion should be legal. Prior to Roe, abortion was legal on request in Washington and New York. It was also legal if a woman's health was at risk in 15 other states. I don't understand why 9 people wearing robes should be allowed to make a completely arbitrary decision when we supposedly live in a democratic republic.
As you stated it, you did not define personhood so as to exclude an unborn baby. It might interest you to know that the law has, for centuries, recognized the right of an unborn person to inherit under a will that include descendants "now living".
It is not a false statement to say that the federal government is forcing everyone to fund abortions. The Catholic Church is against abortions, but they have been informed by HHS secretary Sebelius that they must fund abortions. See that? The government is telling people who are against abortion that they have to fund abortion. That is what I like to call a True statement.
You state that unborn babies are not persons without any proof. Perhaps that is your own dogma that you would like to force on everyone else. You don't explain why the state should give preference to some persons, i.e. protect them, and not others.
Yes babies are cute and cuddly. I'm sorry why I can't explain to you that it repulsive that some people would tear them into pieces.
February 06, 2012 1:31pm
Do you want to stop the killing of unborn humans?
February 06, 2012 5:42pm
they become human at birth. . . the twisted minds trying to do it both ways against the rights of women. OUTLAW the mercury -.- Neuclear waste hasn't ever been addressed -.- only stock piled . . Is their destroying the healthcare of the worker going to make the world a safer place ?? and if and when a child is born with a defect caused by mercury WHOSE PAYING???
Venture Capitalist CUT THE RIGHTS OF WORKERS IN THE FIRST STEP OF GUTTING THE COMPANY....THE BIG THREE AUTO - used to suppply benefits / cut the benefits and the execs get bonuses . .WE CAN NOT AFFORD IT ???
878 BILLION DOLLAR BAILOUT OF THE BANKS AND WALL STREET WITHOUT ANY ACCOUNTIBILITY.....880 BILLION DOOAR WAR ON IRAQ ??? FAULTY INTELIGENCE LIES - OUTRIGHT LIES. . . 9-11 WE FAILED TO CONNECT THE DOTS ???
WE HAVE NO MONEY BUT CAN SUPPORT THE WORLD WITH OUR FOREIGN AID
WHAT YOU ARE SMELLING ISN'T ROSES - A ROYAL SELLOUT BY THE ELITE OF WASHINGTON
February 08, 2012 9:38am
We are created human at conception. Consider the scientific experts and their medical testimony. But whatever, you've made up your mind...
MODERN TEACHING TEXTS ON EMBRYOLOGY / PRENATAL DEVELOPMENT
"Human development begins at fertilization, the process during which a male gamete or sperm (spermatozoo developmentn) unites with a female gamete or oocyte (ovum) to form a single cell called a zygote. This highly specialized, totipotent cell marked the beginning of each of us as a unique individual."
"A zygote is the beginning of a new human being (i.e., an embryo)."
Keith L. Moore, The Developing Human: Clinically Oriented Embryology, 7th edition. Philadelphia, PA: Saunders, 2003. pp. 16, 2.
"Development begins with fertilization, the process by which the male gamete, the sperm, and the femal gamete, the oocyte, unite to give rise to a zygote."
T.W. Sadler, Langman's Medical Embryology, 10th edition. Philadelphia, PA: Lippincott Williams & Wilkins, 2006. p. 11.
"[The zygote], formed by the union of an oocyte and a sperm, is the beginning of a new human being."
Keith L. Moore, Before We Are Born: Essentials of Embryology, 7th edition. Philadelphia, PA: Saunders, 2008. p. 2.
"Although life is a continuous process, fertilization (which, incidentally, is not a 'moment') is a critical landmark because, under ordinary circumstances, a new genetically distinct human organism is formed when the chromosomes of the male and female pronuclei blend in the oocyte."
Ronan O'Rahilly and Fabiola Müller, Human Embryology and Teratology, 3rd edition. New York: Wiley-Liss, 2001. p. 8.
"Human embryos begin development following the fusion of definitive male and female gametes during fertilization... This moment of zygote formation may be taken as the beginning or zero time point of embryonic development."
William J. Larsen, Essentials of Human Embryology. New York: Churchill Livingstone, 1998. pp. 1, 14.
OLDER TEACHING TEXTS ON EMBRYOLOGY / PRENATAL DEVELOPMENT
"It is the penetration of the ovum by a spermatozoan and resultant mingling of the nuclear material each brings to the union that constitues the culmination of the process of fertilization and marks the initiation of the life of a new individual."
Clark Edward Corliss, Patten's Human Embryology: Elements of Clinical Development. New York: McGraw Hill, 1976. p. 30.
"The term conception refers to the union of the male and female pronuclear elements of procreation from which a new living being develops."
"The zygote thus formed represents the beginning of a new life."
J.P. Greenhill and E.A. Friedman, Biological Principles and Modern Practice of Obstetrics. Philadelphia: W.B. Saunders, 1974. pp. 17, 23.
"Every time a sperm cell and ovum unite a new being is created which is alive and will continue to live unless its death is brought about by some specific condition."
E.L. Potter and J.M. Craig, Pathology of the Fetus and the Infant, 3rd edition. Chicago: Year Book Medical Publishers, 1975. p. vii.
GENERAL AUDIENCE TEXTS ON EMBRYOLOGY / PRENATAL DEVELOPMENT
"Every baby begins life within the tiny globe of the mother's egg... It is beautifully translucent and fragile and it encompasses the vital links in which life is carried from one generation to the next. Within this tiny sphere great events take place. When one of the father's sperm cells, like the ones gathered here around the egg, succeeds in penetrating the egg and becomes united with it, a new life can begin."
Geraldine Lux Flanagan, Beginning Life. New York: DK, 1996. p. 13.
PRENATAL DEVELOPMENT VIDEOS
"Biologically speaking, human development begins at fertilization."
The Biology of Prenatal Develpment, National Geographic, 2006.
"The two cells gradually and gracefully become one. This is the moment of conception, when an individual's unique set of DNA is created, a human signature that never existed before and will never be repeated."
In the Womb, National Geographic, 2005.
EXPERT TESTIMONY RELATING TO LIFE'S BEGINNING
In 1981, a United States Senate judiciary subcommittee received the following testimony from a collection of medical experts (Subcommittee on Separation of Powers to Senate Judiciary Committee S-158, Report, 97th Congress, 1st Session, 1981):
"It is incorrect to say that biological data cannot be decisive...It is scientifically correct to say that an individual human life begins at conception."
Professor Micheline Matthews-Roth
Harvard University Medical School
"I have learned from my earliest medical education that human life begins at the time of conception."
Dr. Alfred M. Bongioanni
Professor of Pediatrics and Obstetrics, University of Pennsylvania
"After fertilization has taken place a new human being has come into being. [It] is no longer a matter of taste or opinion...it is plain experimental evidence. Each individual has a very neat beginning, at conception."
Dr. Jerome LeJeune
Professor of Genetics, University of Descartes
"By all the criteria of modern molecular biology, life is present from the moment of conception."
Professor Hymie Gordon
Mayo Clinic
"The beginning of a single human life is from a biological point of view a simple and straightforward matter – the beginning is conception."
Dr. Watson A. Bowes
University of Colorado Medical School
The official Senate report reached this conclusion:
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.10
The American Medical Association (AMA) declared as far back as 1857 (referenced in the Roe. vs. Wade opinion) that "the independent and actual existence of the child before birth, as a living being” is a matter of objective science. They deplored the “popular ignorance...that the foetus is not alive till after the period of quickening.”
Why have all the teaching texts and so many medical experts come to this same conclusion? Because there are simple ways to measure whether something is alive and whether something is human. If Faye Wattleton is correct and everyone already knows that abortion kills a human being, they have come to that knowledge in spite of the information circulated by Planned Parenthood and the rest of the abortion-rights community. The abortion section of the Planned Parenthood website explains abortion this way:
"Abortion is a safe and legal way for women to end pregnancy."11
How's that for thorough? Maybe they just assume that the method for ending the pregnancy is so obvious (killing the human being living in the womb) that it hardly bears mentioning. More likely, Planned Parenthood is simply accommodating the general ignorance which believes abortion to be the mere removal of potential human life, rather than the actual killing of existing human life.
February 06, 2012 1:11pm
Repugs...what a bunch of hypocrites!