How else to explain these ads that the Sierra Club is running throughout the D.C. subway?
 |
The small print begins, “Mercury pollution from our nation’s coal-burning power plants is harming pregnant women and their unborn children.” So, when it’s politically advantageous, they’re not “fetuses,” they’re “unborn children,” and they need to be protected now from mercury poisoning, that can harm them in the womb. Sierra Club’s produced three different ads like this, which you can find here.
Of course, there are plenty of other examples of this mentality. These British National Health Service ads looks like they was put up by pro-lifers, until you read that they’re about smoking and drinking.
The first one says, “Smoking will seriously damage the health of your unborn child. For their sake, stop today!” Once again, he’s an unborn child, not a fetus; and once again, we have a responsibility to protect them now, while they’re still unborn.
The second one has a similar message, as part of the “Best for Baby” campaign. It reads, “Drinking causes damage you can’t see,” with subtext that reads, “Avoidance of alcohol is the safest thing for you and your baby.”
Don’t get me wrong: I’m glad that groups are speaking up about the various risks to unborn children. I hate that children are viewed as an inconvenience and an imposition, rather than the newest members of a family and the next generation in society. What I don’t like is how exploitation and hypocritical they are — it seems like unborn children are just being used here as an emotional ploy to support public health and environmental movements.
After all, if we’re really concerned about the health and well-being of unborn children, let’s address the elephant in the room. You know what harms unborn babies more than smoking, and drinking, and coal-producing power plants combined? Abortion. Abortion is harming pregnant women and their unborn children. Abortion will seriously damage the health of your unborn child. Abortion causes damage you can’t see. And avoidance of abortion is the safest option for you and your baby. Those are some ads I’d love to see Sierra Club or the NHS run. If we’re going to talk about how much we care about the health and well-being of unborn children, let’s do it forthrightly.
Amen!
Clarity! Truth! I love it! Cut right through all the bull. 🙂
Preach!
Totally reminds me of that debate I had with that guy on your blog. Although in his defense, he was consistent about referring to my child as not being a child.
The government on the other hand is not consistent. How judicial is it to convict a PA veterinarian for murdering his mistress and their unborn son (in the 1st trimester) yet this happens everyday without any recourse? I’m so confused. A baby is a baby isn’t it? Or is it only a baby if it’s not being aborted?
http://www.washingtonpost.com/national/pa-vet-admits-killing-pregnant-mistress-dumping-body-in-nature-preserve-gets-life-in-prison/2011/12/08/gIQAizP7fO_story.html
Thank you for logic. With permission, I’d like to reblog!
Hypothermia and starvation are not good for babies either. All human activity does in some sense pollute — hence, toilets. The generation of energy though oil, coal, and nuclear power provides light, heat, warmth, and economic activity. Maybe the Sierra Club wants to sleep naked in the cold; I’m into food, clothing, and shelter myself.
I’ve always thought this was an illogical argument for abortion – whether or not a baby is a baby because the mother wants it or doesn’t. Now it seems even worse (if that is possible) – most admitting that indeed it is a baby but deciding (based on their circumstances) whether or not he/she should CONTINUE to live or not. Now we’ve made murder of the unborn acceptable, responsible even, without claiming ignorance as our excuse.
@Deltaflute, Scott Peterson had the same issue.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scott_Peterson
Here’s a shining example of the scum of humanity, who kills his wife who is pregnant with their unborn son. He’s convicted and sentenced to death for TWO murders. If Laci Peterson had gone to a planned parenthood and had her unborn child murdered there, nothing would have happen to her…
Laci Peterson’s death actually spurred the US Congress to enact the “Unborn Victims of Violence Act”
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unborn_Victims_of_Violence_Act
Sadly… “… the bill explicitly contained a provision excepting abortion…”
Quite frankly, with the number of baby-boomers who are due to retire in the coming years, and the growing costs of keeping them alive, I wouldn’t put it past this society to redefine the elderly as inconvenient and make it legal for their children and grandchildren to kill them if they become too much of a burden…
The exact same arguments made in favor of murdering the unborn can be made in favor of murdering the elderly. It boils down to the argument that murderers throughout history have always made: Rationalizing away their victim’s humanity.
They may look human, they may smell human, they may feel human, they may even tell you to your face that they ARE human and have just as much of a right to their God-Given life as anyone else, but they’re not human…
Hell, the arguments that people make in favor of abortion can also be made for killing children up to about the age 8, if not later… Children being totally dependent upon their parents doesn’t exactly stop immediately once they’re outside the womb.
Sorry for rambling on… Abortion is something of a touchy subject to me — I’m not exactly looking forward to meeting up with my two older siblings in the Afterlife who never got to the chance at living lives of their own.
MMatins,
Go right ahead.
And thanks everybody, for your contributions!
I.X.,
Joe
Love, love, love this!
Amazing post! I love this.
Katie and Melanie,
Thank you!
I love this, but you failed to mention about the poor souls who will be born addicted to drugs.