Pro-Choice in the headlines
Woman Murdered, Baby Survives.
I've always found it striking how completely unscientific the pro-choice movement is, in light of this very thing: if the mother *wants* to have the baby, the baby is a life; if the mother does not want to have the baby, the baby was a dependent fetus. Since when does volition have anything to do with the definition of a life? That's phenomenology, not biology. How ironic!
In these news stories I can't help but be irked by the continual avoidance of calling the baby a baby, but instead referring to it as a "fetus", even after it has been removed from the womb. The rhetoric of the pro-choice movement just got stranger; it used to be that once the in utero life was no longer in utero, it was no longer a fetus, but a baby (assuming it survived). Because of the parallelism between this crime and abortion, the pro-choice movement must wrap the crime in the same rhetoric; sickeningly, this downplays the crime.
So, what we have here is a description of an attempted abortion. In the same swoop we have incontrovertible proof that the 'fetus is dependent on the mother' argument is biologically false. Roe v. Wade has nothing to stand on scientifically or experientially. Anything that can survive being forcefully severed from another entity was obviously *not* dependent on that particular other entity. Substitution is (or one day will be) possible at any stage in the game post-conception, and here we have proof.
The 'fetus' does not need the particular mother. Here is proof. Thus, the 'fetus' is a human lifespan independent of other human beings. This little one fought the good fight and proved it. Praise the Lord.