The Globe and Mail tiptoes carefully through the semantic minefield in this story on an unborn baby having heart surgery in utero. Notice the terms used [my bolding]:
"TORONTO — In what's being called a Canadian first, Toronto doctors have successfully performed a heart procedure on a fetus inside the womb.
A team of doctors at the Hospital for Sick Children and Mount Sinai Hospital expanded one of the baby's heart valves using a balloon catheter. The device was inserted through the mother's abdomen and then into the fetus to reverse heart failure before delivery.
Sick Kids Hospital says the procedure allowed the baby to remain safely in utero for a crucial extra month before her birth on April 15.
Within an hour of Oceane McKenzie's birth, she had another procedure, and a third followed a few weeks later. Doctors say Oceane is well on the road to recovery and will soon be going home."
Now the pro-abortion types are going to hate this article. It refers to this little girl as "fetus-baby-fetus-baby-Oceane McKenzie." This is clearly a fetus, which is also a baby, who also has a name.
But under Canadian law her mother could have changed her mind after the heart operation and had Oceane killed by an abortionist at any moment up to the moment the baby emerged from the birth canal. So how can the pro-abortionists say that abortion is not killing a person? There is only one way to do it: Oceane was a person because her mother wanted her. So one human being can bestow and remove personhood from another by an act of will. The last time that sort of thing was legal was in the days of slavery. How "progressive" we are - not!
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Posts
1 comment:
Wow - the G&M isn't the brightest is it? Actually referring to the child as a 'baby'?
That's kind of like OJ Simpson finally admitting his guilt in his book "If I Did It". Not a "real" confession - a "hypothetical" instead. The thing is, everyone knows he's actually guilty!
Post a Comment