.comment-link {margin-left:.6em;} < link rel="DCTERMS.replaces" href="http://www.publiusforum.com/illini/illinialliance_main.html" >


Thursday, August 03, 2006


Human Fetus A "Parasite" - The State News, Mich. State Univ.

-By Warner Todd Huston

What are they teaching our children at MSU in East Lansing, Michigan? It appears to be that a human fetus is no different than a "tapeworm" or a "parasitical creature". They are also teaching that a newspaper is the proper place for devaluing human life as a recent article by Shane Krouse in The State News proves.

Shane Krouse, a sophomore and State News columnist, directly and unequivocally equates the human fetus, which he rather unscientifically describes as "a wad of cells", to parasites. He doesn’t stop with parasites, but goes much further than that, of course, as he lambastes the right to lifers, Catholics and "fundamentalists" and God, as well, over the abortion issue.

But, there seems to be a lot of illogic in the youngster's "reasoning". And, his entire stance is one that easily leads to a devaluing of life outside the womb as well as that inside. Nor does he adequately determine when that fetus magically goes from the "wad of cells" stage to human status.

To begin with, Mr. Krouse maintains that abortion cannot be considered "murder" because the fetus, that "wad of cells", is "not yet living". So destruction of it through abortion is a lifestyle choice as opposed to the ending of the life of a baby.

Krouse attempts to give logical reasons for his devaluing of the fetus.

"During the first trimester of the pregnancy, the fetus is merely a wad of cells. A mere wad of cells doesn't equate to a fully functioning, living human being. A wad of cells cannot make its own cognitive decisions. A wad of cells doesn't have the capability to inhale or exhale with its lungs. A wad of cells cannot survive independently, as it relies completely on its mother for all its nutriment."

A prosaic argument that many in the pro-abortion crowd commonly make, how ever logically unsound. To fully accept this "nutriment" argument it could easily be observed that an infant STILL "cannot survive independently" even after birth. I don't know of many babies that can get up out of their cradle and make their own bottle, so this means they are still 100% reliant on getting their "nutriment" from Mother. Taken to the logical end, the "nutriment" argument does not stand up.

After saying the fetus is not a living human, he goes on to claim that this same "wad of cells" is no different than a dog or cat in that those creatures are considered "property".

"The mother deserves every right to make a decision to abort her fetus. The supreme law of our land, the U.S. Constitution, guarantees Americans have the right to their property. Are pets not considered the property of a human? Humans provide pets with food, water and a habitat, just as a mother provides a fetus a habitat inside of the womb, along with food and oxygen."

Correct me if I am wrong, but is this youngster claiming that a baby should be considered "property" in the same way we do pets? It seems to me that we once had a law in this great nation where certain people were considered "property". We called that concept "slavery". A war was fought over it if I recall. Is Mr. Krouse hoping we might return to a day where we consider certain classes of humans "property"? If so, what rights do children really have? And, I am curious if Mr. Krouse's studies are being paid for by his Mommy and Daddy? Mightn't we still apply the "property" tag to Mr. Krouse since he might possibly not be able to "exist" on his own without his Parent's support?

I suppose this is why we send children to college, to learn, but Mr. Krouse doesn't seem as far along as one might hope in that process.

In fairness to young Mr. Krouse, he does attempt to keep his discussion in relations to that "wad of cells" and not the born child. However, all his reasons devastate his arbitrary time line.

"...the fetus should be considered property of its mother. Not to mention, the wad of cells inside her doesn't have the ability to choose for itself."

What 2 month-old infant has the "ability to choose for itself", after all? His criteria continues to be this "ability to chose" or think, or react, or help itself. But no baby has that ability for years after birth. So, logic dictates that his criteria for bestowing "life" can easily be extended past birth and on into the first few years of life. And some University Professors have propounded upon just such a theory.

Mr. Krouse's next line of attack is the aforementioned comparison of the fetus to a tapeworm.

"If anything, a fetus is merely a parasitical creature that uses the mother as its host.

Tapeworms are parasites that house themselves in the intestinal tracts of humans, feeding off the food the host consumes. Comparatively, a fetus is little more than a tapeworm. It is quite common for humans to annihilate parasites with medications or toxins, so why not allow for fetuses to suffer the same fate?"

But, here his logic also breaks down. He has claimed that a fetus is not "alive", not able to move, or think, or carry on like the "live" mother that houses the fetus and should, therefore, be killed off at will with no compunctions or consideration. Yet, his example of the tapeworm or other parasite is ill fitting because a tapeworm is fully able to exhibit all the various levels of "life" while inside or outside the human. And, since Mr. Krouse is using the criteria of being fully functional as one to bestow "life" then he should be incensed that we humans might try to kill off a tapeworm or other parasite. After all, those creatures are "alive" in the very sense that Mr. Krouse is claiming that a fetus is not, yet he seems to have no problem with killing a tapeworm.

Might we suspect that, if he has no interest in the life of the tapeworm using his own criteria, he has none for the life of the baby? If he is willing to ignore his criteria for life in the killing of the tapeworm, why should we assume that his criteria should suddenly mean anything to him where it concerns a baby?

His inconsistency is alarming.

God is Krouse's next target. Hope the big guy doesn't get too mad at our former little "wad of cells" in Michigan. Krouse veers into the field of in vitro fertilization and the "tragic fate of many fertilized eggs" he is shocked to see all around him.

"Fundamentalists fiercely oppose abortion because they believe it is murder. They often recognize those who are "slaughtered" by holding vigils and other ceremonies.

Do any of these individuals realize that according to the National Institutes of Health, 25 percent of conceived embryos perish within the first six weeks due to complications such as failure to implant to the uterus wall? That's right -- a quarter of all "humans" conceived end up 'dying.'"

He fails to understand that an embryo that fails to implant into the uterus walls is a natural failure. That would be considered an "act of God" to right to life advocates. However, a Doctor vacuuming the mangled limbs of a baby in the womb after having cut it to pieces is far from such an act of God, far from a natural occurrence.

Religious people leave the choice of when life may be bestowed to God and should God decide that a fetus should be aborted, they accept that fate, even when saddened about it. There is no inconsistency about there. What is God’s area of responsibility -- who lives and who dies via natural selection -- is not questioned by man. (And for his knowledge, many right to lifers do, indeed, dislike in vitro fertilization for the very reason that it is man deciding to a great degree.)

Of course, that does not stop our little Mr. Krouse from resorting to hyperbole about his feelings about God's decisions.

"It would appear that the 'loving' God of these fundamentalists is many more times guilty of murder than all the human race's abortionists combined."

Krouse sums up his entire argument with the following:

"Life begins when the baby is passed through the birth canal and exits the womb. At this point, the baby is no longer physically connected to the mother and no longer freeloading its nutrients and oxygen from mommy."

If "freeloading" is to be a criterion to exclude the status of "life" then perhaps we might "abort" everyone on welfare and anyone who is not wholly subsisting by his own efforts? Perhaps the aged and infirm should be eliminated in an "abortion". Maybe the mentally unfit, or those in a coma fit Mr. Krouse's criteria of not truly being "alive"? As we are slaughtering them, we can let them know they have Shane Krouse to thank for ending their useless, unalive existence. And we can let them know that Michigan State University seems to think such an idea is perfectly reasonable.

Comments: Post a Comment

Links to this post:

Create a Link

<< Home

Ring of Conservative Sites Ring of Conservative Sites

[ Prev | Skip Prev | Prev 5 | List |
Rand | Next 5 | Skip Next | Next ]

This page is powered by Blogger. Isn't yours?