"Mass of Tissue"

Go take a look at the photographs taken of a perfectly formed baby at ten weeks gestation.  It's very sad to realize we're looking at a baby who died for the sake of the mother's life.  But it's stunning to see, wholly in tact, the perfectly formed baby that is usually called a "mass of tissue" by those who would endorse aborting it for unethical reasons.

Comments

[James]

We saw an ultrasound of our baby at 9 weeks, and we could see the heartbeat, and during the ultrasound he even wiggled. At that point, I lost all understanding of someone wanting to abort at that stage... not even at a moral level, but just at a plain emotional level, it seems unthinkable to me.

My heart really goes out to those people who can see pictures like these, or view their own ultrasounds, and still feel like abortion is the only option for them.

[john]

James--
One step further, not that it's their "only" option, but that it's even "an" option is what concerns me.

[Louis Kuhelj]

It seems to me that I hear more and more that economic reasons are often the driving force behind decisions to abort. Thank you capitalism for your contribution to evil in this world. I can't wait to be under a proper monarchy. Thank God I won't have to wait long.

[Daron]

Abortion statistics were classified in the Soviet Union until the end of the 1980s. [10] During this period, the USSR had one of the highest abortion rates in the world. The abortion rate in the USSR peaked in 1964, when 5.6 million abortions were performed, the highest number in Russia’s history.[11] Nevertheless, the legalization of abortion did not fully eliminate criminal abortions. [E.A. Sadvokasova]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abortion_in_Russia

[Brad B]

Hi Louis, I think you might be misplacing your displeasure amiss. If you feel compelled to blame capitalism for ills like abortion and not the misuse of capitalism, you might be also compelled to blame/defame the medical profession because some in it practice against the good.

It is unbridled greedy practicioners of capitalism that give us the fruits of the love of money with no moral constraint.

A scientist with no morals can make science his method of evil in the same way. Would you also thank science for all the evils in the world--I believe it's responsible for more evil than capitalism. In fact, capitalism may be multiple times more responsible for good things than evil things.[my estimation] However, immoral science, immoral capitalism, immoral government, or immoral anything will produce a perversion of it's best use. It's not the instrument, it's the user.

[Louis Kuhelj]

Brad B

" It's not the instrument, it's the user. "

I agree.

"In fact, capitalism may be multiple times more responsible for good things than evil things.[my estimation] "

Then maybe we should do body counts to confirm that estimation.

[Louis Kuhelj]

This economic issue extends beyond the question of abortion. When Americans show generosity toward the poor of other countries rather than USA they are betraying their true motives. It is often much cheaper to help out some underdeveloped nation, with an exchange rate favorable to US, than it is to help the poor within the US boarders. Therefore, in order to do the greatest amount of good is driven by the same economic model of capitalism, resulting in neglect of American poor in order to score more points in the game of generosity. So, Americans can easily say that they did the most good in the world, but when it comes to genuine generosity...well, you can't put a number or a value amount on that. As usual, they aim for quantity rather than quality and make a nice PR sales job along the way. What it ends up being is metrics that allow Americans to do their posturing about how much good they do in the world, while making sure it is done on the cheap. That doesn't mean that the good they do is not genuine, but it is closer to the Malachi 1 example of the shoddy offerings go God.

[Daron]

Two thoughts:
1) Maybe those who give their money to the foreign poor also give their money to America's poor.
2) Maybe they notice that a good portion fot heir dollars are already going to America's poor via taxes and have decided to send their money to those enormously worse off.

http://www.heritage.org/research/reports/2007/08/how-poor-are-americas-poor-examining-the-plague-of-poverty-in-america

[Holly]

Another thought: Think of how sad that it is that a person can be jailed for destroying an Eagle's egg, yet is protected when destroying a baby in the womb. :(

[kpolo]

Louis,
If capitalism is to be blamed for abortion, what would you propose as the alternative? Pick your poison: Communism (do I need to mention the fruits of Stalin, Mao and others?)

[Michael J. bridge]

Louis,
As someone who gives generously, both overseas and in America, I take offense to the suggestion that we give overseas because it is a favorable exchange rate that allows us to feel like we did more for our money in some insidious false-piety sort of way- especially when you quote scripture to suggest that the generosity is false, and possibly sinful. There are several issues that need addressed here. First being that Malachi was preaching to people under a tithe requirement, which we aren't. We are told to give joyfully from our heart. So anything we give that we give for God's glory is acceptable to him.

Next, aside from you having no right to judge the hearts of those who give generously- consider that many of us give overseas because there is REAL poverty there. When I learn that I can save lives in Africa because I can help provide access to clean water, I realize that there is a level of poverty that I don't see here. Our poor have access to clean water and food, and even shelter. Our poor have tvs and phones and cars. Our poor all get an education and get a chance to make it in the world, even if it is at a diminished capacity. The poor in places like Africa die because they can't get clean water and never have a chance to have even the quality of life that the American poor have. Our money doesn't get us a better exchange rate and better feeling of self-congratulations. Our money going overseas saves lives. Our money here in America simply helps increase the standard of living. I want people to have a better standard of living. But if the choice is between making someone's life better OR saving someone's life, there isn't even a choice there.

When someone in Haiti is offering to give their kid away to any American who will just take care of him, and when they are eating mud pies to silence the rumbling in their bellies, I consider that REAL poverty.

Not to mention that being "poor" in America is hardly an excuse for abortion considering the number of people who are on waiting lists for years trying to adopt infants in this country. Adoption is always an option, and is a much better one than abortion.

[David Hawkins]

Let's get past the notion that "capitalism" is somehow responsbile here. It isn't, period.

The wickedness of the human heart (and it's rejection of the One True God) is,...and will continue to be, at the foundation of all the man-designed woes we confront upon this globe.

[John]

According to Louis's opinion, the character of our giving is a direct function of the currency exchange rate.

Following this logic, do we get generosity "bonus points" for giving to countries with unfavorable exchange rates (e.g. Europe with the strengthening Euro, pound, and Swiss franc)?

[Robin]

Amen to Michael, exactly!