“Saving nature’s unborn from Gulf oil disaster,” the headline at CNN reads.
Hard to know how the oil spill threatened them, but the subject looked interesting.
So I clicked on it, to find that it was a feel-good story about efforts to relocate clutches of sea-turtle eggs to beaches away from oil stains.
Nice. But ask yourself this about the language of American journalism today, the next time you think about abortion: Why is an animal awaiting birth unborn, while a human awaiting birth is lump of tissue?
July 10th, 2010 | 11:58 am
My thoughts exactly.
July 10th, 2010 | 12:39 pm
This is true of the eggs of the Golden Eagle as well. The bird is protected in all phases of life including the eggs. You can be prosecuted for removing them from the nest or otherwise harming them in any way.
But the fertilized human egg??? just a lump of tissue, as you say.
Logically inconsistent, 100%
July 10th, 2010 | 2:55 pm
“Why is an animal awaiting birth unborn, while a human awaiting birth is lump of tissue?”
Because, in the minds of so many in today’s media, non-human animals are completely innocent, and we humans are the brutal, oppressive, polluting Gaia-haters. Therefore, it’s not that our unborn are somehow something other than unborn, but that our sins make our unborn future threats to our oppressed world, and thus unworthy of the term.
Because we devalue the world (they say), we should be devalued ourselves.
July 10th, 2010 | 10:40 pm
I encounter this love of nature over love of mankind (admittedly more difficult to love) almost everyday. Not long ago a colleague at work told me that “pickup trucks are evil.” Not blowing up over one hundred Pakstanis this weekend or the slaughter of a couple of hundred Uzbecks a few weeks ago or the 13,000 Americans killed by drunk drivers every year or the assassination of an Iraqi archbishop. No, pickup trucks are evil; terminating babies with extreme prejudice — and it is a prejudice against human life — is not. Sometimes I think I have to attend mass every week just to hear the lector in prayer acknowledge the unborn who will never be born. I hate this. I hate what my beautiful country has become.
July 10th, 2010 | 10:50 pm
Actually this sounds more like an idea pushed by many Christians. Over on the Evangel blog, we have a writer who appears to be suggesting that unborn human fetuses deserve to be punished by God, because of what they are.
Anyhow, I suppose that the reason sensible people are concerned about the eggs of sea-turtles and certain eagles is because their populations are threatened or endangered. Human populations, per se, aren’t really threatened in the same way.
July 10th, 2010 | 11:08 pm
I have often said or written “fetus,” in the spirit of boldly reclaiming the language and using the word with a respect that I hope will change its connotation. Furthermore, if I speak the language of my adversaries, aren’t they more likely to give me a hearing, or at least a few more seconds of their attention before they figure out I’m pro-life and they stop listening?
But I’ve come to reconsider that strategy. “Fetus” is a Latin word that sounds barbed in English. Obviously more gracious and respectful is the term “unborn child.” The decision whether to refer to the unborn child as an unborn child or as a fetus doesn’t alter his or her dignity, but it does reflect on the character of the person who makes the decision about which term to use.
I once heard someone explain that, no, he’s not going to call the unborn child a fetus any more than he’s going to call the woman who’s carrying the child a gravida.
July 11th, 2010 | 2:21 am
Then again, Nicholas, would you insist, as some do, on calling a zygote an unborn child? Wouldn’t that be like calling an acorn a “pre-germinated oak,” or like calling caviar a “pre-hatched school of fish”? The silliness here seems to indicate that such pro-life terminology is quite a lot like the used-car dealership speaking of its “pre-owned cars.”
July 11th, 2010 | 7:12 am
A search of cnn.com turns up exactly one relevant entry on the phrase “lump of tissue.” The use of this term to describe a fetus is described as “beyond the pale” in that article.
It doesn’t help the argument to set up pretty obvious strawmen. But then this is the internet, where strawmen and dubious accusations of inconsistency are half the fun.
July 11th, 2010 | 12:58 pm
Janice:
“Actually this sounds more like an idea pushed by many Christians. Over on the Evangel blog, we have a writer who appears to be suggesting that unborn human fetuses deserve to be punished by God, because of what they are.”
If someone is saying that–that God punishes the unborn for being unborn, whatever that means–then that’s crazy.
“Anyhow, I suppose that the reason sensible people are concerned about the eggs of sea-turtles and certain eagles is because their populations are threatened or endangered. Human populations, per se, aren’t really threatened in the same way.”
No, of course not…except for forced migrations, ethnic cleansing, genocide, and the like. But if not for those, then you’re completely right. (Frankly, I’m wondering how you could seriously make such an assertion.)
As we have had animal extinctions, so too have we had the same–or at least had people try to do the same–among humans.
July 11th, 2010 | 5:30 pm
“Then again, Nicholas, would you insist, as some do, on calling a zygote an unborn child?”
No, I wouldn’t insist on it. But here’s what I would insist on: that if the zygote you’re calling a zygote is human, you use the word with respect, not contempt. That zygote is what you and everyone you know and love has been.
Much of the resistance to the pro-life cause is grounded in the false pride of angelism: “Surely we, who count ourselves so clever and self-determining, are a different species entirely from /that/?”
At its root, the word “humility,” from the Latin word for “earth,” means really a kind of honesty about who we are as human beings. To be a human being is a great blessing but a blessing different from that of being an angel. “Remember, man, thou art dust and to dust thou shalt return.”
July 11th, 2010 | 6:41 pm
One of the sad ironies, of our age, is that the place that the unborn should be the safest, in her mother’s womb, is the only place, where a human being has no legal protection.
It’s essential that we continue to point out, in every forum possible, the convincing scientific evidence that the unborn are every bit as human, as you and I, ecept in an earlier stage of development.
July 11th, 2010 | 11:24 pm
Steve writes, “If someone is saying that–that God punishes the unborn for being unborn, whatever that means–then that’s crazy.”
Well, that’s not exactly what they’re suggesting. They’re suggesting that human fetuses deserve to be punished for being descendants of Adam. That also seems crazy, but you must admit, it is Christians who are saying these things. Some of these folks confidently affirm that fetuses deserve far worse than prenatal dismemberment. A lot of others just suspect this. I guess these views are really strange, but your suggestion that human populations are threatened in the same way that sea turtle populations are threatened also a bit out of touch with reality. Are you familiar with the concept of an endangered species?
July 11th, 2010 | 11:44 pm
Nicholas Frankovich writes, ” But here’s what I would insist on: that if the zygote you’re calling a zygote is human, you use the word with respect, not contempt.”
I suppose that when most people speak of a human fetus they “use the word with respect, not contempt.” But “respect” is a really fuzzy, multi-dimensional, concept. Most pro-choice people respect human fetuses, but probably not to the extent to which that you are hoping. Most pro-life folks respect non-human babies to some extent, but usually not in the way they respect human babies.
I’d love to hear more about your theory about how “much of the resistance to the pro-life cause is grounded in the false pride of angelism.” Sounds interesting, but, even with what you say, I’m not exactly seeing a strong connection. Would you also say that much of the resistance to the animal rights cause is grounded in the false pride of angelism?
July 12th, 2010 | 6:15 am
One of the sad ironies, of our age, is that the place that the unborn should be the safest, in her mother’s womb, is the only place, where a human being has no legal protection.
I appreciate your sentiment but humans have never been safe in the womb. Recent studies appear to show shockingly high rates of miscarriage in the early stages of pregnancy — before the woman may even know she is pregnant. The estimate right now is that 25% of pregnancies terminate naturally. It differs by age: young women have lower rates while women nearing menopause have rates between 50-90%.
One can imagine these numbers were even higher historically when humans had to fight for their survival. Miscarriage is part of the natural order — it’s something Darwin could have only imagined.
July 12th, 2010 | 9:05 am
Janice:
“They’re suggesting that human fetuses deserve to be punished for being descendants of Adam. That also seems crazy, but you must admit, it is Christians who are saying these things.”
So yours isn’t a defense of the unborn, but a criticism of the doctrine of original sin? If so, you’re taking the original topic of this thread on a far-ranging journey. (Of course, even a hypothetical like infant limbo isn’t dogmatically held by many–or even most–Catholics.)
“Some of these folks confidently affirm that fetuses deserve far worse than prenatal dismemberment. A lot of others just suspect this.”
‘Far worse’ being what? Hellfire? Again, if this is what you’re pointing to, I’d like to meet these folks. I’ve never heard a Christian of any stripe–even some of the most doctrinaire Calvinists–argue that humans who die in utero go straight to hell. (I’ll admit ahead of time that I certainly could be wrong, but I just haven’t met any of them.)
“I guess these views are really strange, but your suggestion that human populations are threatened in the same way that sea turtle populations are threatened also a bit out of touch with reality. Are you familiar with the concept of an endangered species?”
Really? I’m the one out of touch with reality? European Jews, I assure you, felt quite endangered only a few decades ago. As did European Roma, Russian Jews, Armenians in the Ottoman Empire, Tutsis in Rwanda, black Africans in Darfur, ethnic Albanians in the former Yugoslavia, etc. etc. etc.
Yes, I care for endangered animal species a great deal. I’m a conservationist. But your inability to see how humans of various ethnicities have been endangered over the centuries is shocking.
July 12th, 2010 | 9:06 am
I guess I’m slow. Turtle eggs are laid and then they hatch. In this case, long after abandonment by their parents. Birth is a mammalian trait. Calling turtle eggs “pre-born” is biologically strange.
And I wonder what other aspects of the human continuum Janice finds reason to respect less than others.
July 12th, 2010 | 9:55 am
“I suppose that the reason sensible people are concerned about the eggs of sea-turtles and certain eagles is because their populations are threatened or endangered. Human populations, per se, aren’t really threatened in the same way.”
I’m not sure, but I think you’re saying that sensible people should value the unborn life of a species solely according to how endangered it is. But aren’t competition and survival of the fittest the laws of nature? If we humans are to be considered merely as an animal species, neither better nor worse than any other, why should we care if the members of another species become extinct, unless that extinction threatens our own survival? Dogs don’t care if sea turtles become extinct, and, if we are no better than dogs, why should we? If, on the other hand, we are to be held to a higher standard than dogs or turtles, haven’t you then smuggled in the hated doctrine of human exceptionalism?
July 12th, 2010 | 10:35 am
But your inability to see how humans of various ethnicities have been endangered over the centuries is shocking.
Analogizing ethnic or religious groups to species is venturing into some pretty dangerous waters.
There is a serious moral question to be asked on whether mass murder on the scale of several million people is somehow less horrific and less of an atrocity if the victims are not concentrated in one ethnicity or religion in particular. I can see plausible arguments in both directions.
The real point is that wiping out the human race would require nothing less than a nuclear war. World War II killed as much as 3% of the world’s population and that was one of the most violent and genocidal conflicts in history. By comparison, the flu epidemic of 1918 killed about the same proportion of the world’s population.
July 12th, 2010 | 12:42 pm
“Analogizing ethnic or religious groups to species is venturing into some pretty dangerous waters.”
Mark, you’re correct, but I wonder if you missed my point (which, of course, could be my fault, as I may not have made it as clearly as possible).
I was responding to Janice’s assertion that human populations are not threatened in the same way as animal populations (her words, “populations”), that human groups, essentially, are not endangered. It’s a completely ridiculous assertion, as many human groups–be they divided by ethnicity or religion–have been threatened, even pushed towards complete extermination.
Yes, sea turtles are a different species from, say, snapping turtles. And yes, Tutsis and Jews are both homo sapiens, so I understand your concern. The implication, at least as I understood it, was that elements of humanity have not been endangered in the way that animal species have, somehow almost implying that the plight of sea turtles is somehow worse. Which is absolute nonsense.
Certainly I wouldn’t use a term like “endangered species” for a persecuted group of people (it would be, as you point out, incorrect). But clearly, there are many examples of people who were endangered, whose very existence was being threatened.
July 12th, 2010 | 4:56 pm
Steve, it appears you’ve still missed the basic idea. The basic idea is that what motivates sensible people to protect sea turtle eggs is quite different from the sort of motivation that would be appropriate in protecting members of the human species, whether or not these members are born or unborn. The idea that pro-lifers oppose abortion because of threats to human populations seems a bit unhinged.
You also seem to be failing to see how my other observation relates to my earlier claim that it is Christians who are suggesting that, as you’ve put it, “non-human animals are completely innocent, and we humans are the brutal, oppressive, polluting Gaia-haters.”
July 12th, 2010 | 6:16 pm
Janice:
“The idea that pro-lifers oppose abortion because of threats to human populations seems a bit unhinged.”
But you need to reread my posts. I didn’t say that, and tried to respond to your statement about “human populations” and “sea turtle populations.” (There are pro-life advocates, though, in low-birth countries like Russia and Spain, that actually do have that concern, whether legitimate or not.)
I’ll certainly admit to misunderstanding your reference to a particular species of turtle, and not to a more general reference to turtles. I read “population,” and then a few posts down read “species.”
But you read something entirely different in my remark about “brutal, oppressive, polluting Gaia-haters.” Mine references those radical environmentalists who greatly revere planet earth, nearly to divinity (hence Gaia) status. Any of those Christians to which you’re referring likely aren’t seeing such a statement as you are. Equating radical environmentalism with the doctrine of original sin doesn’t make much sense.
July 12th, 2010 | 8:26 pm
Mark: It appears that you missed the point of my comments. I could have clarified them better. My point was that legally, one of the most unsafe places for a human being to be, is in her mother’s uterus.
Certainly, from a biological standpoint, you’re right, but I never disputed that.
Links
Blogs
Find Us
Contact