Calling Rome Home

From Northwest Arkansas Times:

The recent ban on abortion in South Dakota is a victory for the "pro-life" movement — and thus, anti-abortionists claim, a victory for "the sanctity of human life." But is it? The South Dakota law bans abortions in all cases except saving the life of the mother. Consider what this would mean for human life — not the "lives" of embryos or primitive fetuses, but the lives of real, living, breathing, thinking women. It would mean that women who wanted to terminate a pregnancy because it resulted from rape or contraceptive failure — or because the would-be father has abandoned her — or because the fetus is malformed — would be forbidden from doing so. It would mean that they would be forced to endure the misery of unwanted pregnancy and the incredible burdens of child rearing. It would mean that women would be sentenced to 18-year terms of enslavement to unwanted children — thereby suffocating their hopes, their dreams, their personal ambitions, their chance of happiness.Read Entire Article

This bit of garbage appeared in one of my local papers, and several others across the country, on Friday. Mr. Beenfeldt, offers one of the most distasteful commentaries I have ever read. Here are a few of my favorite examples with emphasis added.

Consider what this would mean for human life — not the "lives" of embryos or primitive fetuses, but the lives of real, living, breathing, thinking women. It would mean that women who wanted to terminate a pregnancy because it resulted from rape or contraceptive failure — or because the would-be father has abandoned her — or because the fetus is malformed — would be forbidden from doing so.

The quotations around the word lives are Mr. Beenfeldt's. Would-be father? Biologically someone is the father whether they stick around or not. But I think he is using the term "would-be" because he doesn't few, in his words "embryos or primitive fetuses" as real and human.

It would mean that they would be forced to endure the misery of unwanted pregnancy and the incredible burdens of child rearing. It would mean that women would be sentenced to 18-year terms of enslavement to unwanted children — thereby suffocating their hopes, their dreams, their personal ambitions, their chance of happiness.

If this guy has or ever does father children, I wonder how they would feel readying how daddy thinks they are an "incredible burden" and equatable to "18-year terms of enslavement"?

According to a World Health Organization estimate, 110,000 women worldwide die each year from such illegal abortions and up to six times as many suffer injury from them. Clearly, anti-abortionists believe that such women’s lives are an unimportant consideration in the issue of abortion. Why?

Yes, I am rejoice when mother's die and their children grow up without knowing them. Don't critique that which you are ignorant of. And Mr. Beenfeldt, you are clearly ignorant.

Because, they claim, the embryo or fetus is a human being — and thus to abort it is murder. But an embryo is not a human being, and abortion is not murder. There is no scientific reason to characterize a raisinsize lump of cells as a human being.

This comes from a man with a degree in philosophy. Calling it an embryo is a clear indicator of trying to dehumanize and therefore justify your stance. It is a HUMAN embryo. It comes from humans, shares the DNA pattern of humans, and is in fact human.

Biologically speaking, such an embryo is far more primitive than a fish or a bird.

Analogously, seeds can become mature plants — but that hardly makes a pile of acorns equal to a forest.

You're kidding me right? Did he really just compare a human baby to a fish, bird, or pile of acorns? These two sentences alone make this one of most poorly written things I have ever read. I don't profess to be a great mind or a great writer, as evidenced by this blog, but I'm sure that I could have come up with something more intelligent that that. By far my vote getter for most moronic statement of the year.

The ultimate "justification" of the "pro-life" position is religious dogma. Led by the American Roman Catholic Church and Protestant fundamentalists, the movement’s basic tenet, in the words of the Catechism of the Catholic Church, is that an embryo must be treated "from conception as a person" created by the "action of God."

Let's just get one thing straight. There is one Catholic Church to which some if its members happen to live in America.

The article goes on with more rubbish writing by Mr. Beenfeldt expressing his view that a child isn't human while in the womb. I would like to be there one day when one of his children asks, "where you excited when mommy found out she was expecting me?" What is he going to say, "No, not really, I didn't think you where actually a human until you were five years old and would have preferred a fish or pile of acorns."