Wednesday, January 8, 2014

Pro Life Bus Ads in Halifax

This month, all 255 buses in Halifax are carrying this pro-life poster.

And the reaction on Twitter is swift and emotional. One theme throughout the tweets is negative reaction to Metro Transit allowing pro-life ads when they wouldn't put up atheist ads last year. However, a couple of people answered that by saying the case went to court and the atheists won their case. I recall seeing some atheist ads on the outside of buses last Christmas.

What constantly surprises me is the negative reaction to a basic biological fact - Luc's life did begin nine months before he was born into the world. The ad does not say Luc was a person nine months ago, it simply states when his life began. Why is it that pro-choicers cannot admit this fact that is written into every medical text?  They can say they don't believe Luc was a person; we are not arguing that philosophical point. We are simply stating something that people who support abortion do not want to admit:  the fact that this baby is a live organism during its entire time in the womb. It really is quite ignorant to deny such a basic fact. Surely their argument against being pro-life should be based on something more factual than their visceral reaction to this simple statement.

One tweet said that they thought the money spent could have been better used on the poor and needy. Yes, it is being used on the poor and needy. Who could be poorer or more needy than a child in the womb who has no one to defend its life?  Since one in three pregnancies ends in abortion, the womb is the most unsafe place in the world to be. These ads are meant to disturb people, because they are standing up for those who cannot defend themselves. Yes, the money was actually spent on the poor and needy.

Here are some tweets.

"The BS in advertising is legendary. I would love to see all ads undergo a fact-check"

"I want to buy ads that say 'thanks for making me feel guilty about wanting the human right of body autonomy.'"

"What about freedom? Should others' messages be restricted because we don't agree with them?"

And one young woman asked people to sign up if they wished to put up a reproductive rights ad on the buses. Little does she know how much these ads cost. Someone tweeted that the ads were free for non-profit groups.

Imagine their surprise if they should inquire into the cost of ads; no advertising comes free, unless you have a sponsor paying the shot. These ads are the result of about a hundred people donating money, for which they don't even receive a tax receipt. Yes, there is a large contingent of pro-life supporters in Halifax who are very happy to see the silence on abortion being broken.

Broken with a beautiful photo of a newborn baby just as he has taken his first breath.

As Luc's mom said "Little man, you are going to change some hearts." 

Change always begins with some kind of disturbance.


Anonymous said...

Evil people

Twinerism said...

Since you challenge the definition of life at the beginning of conception versus the individual sperm or egg that created said bundle of cells. Every period a woman has is another tiny undeveloped ball of potential life. But no, you challenge an individual's right to have an abortion based on what you religiously define as the beginning of a life. I respect religions of all variety, but please, respect the rights of non-religious people as well. Despite the general stereotype, abortions are often carefully considered decisions. Very hard decisions that individuals make based on their health and their stability. Please do not shame or demonize the rights of these individuals. They had to go through a tough decision in the first place.

Julie Culshaw said...

My definition of the beginning of life is not a religious definition. It is a medical one. The fertilized egg is not a "potential" life, but an actual life. To equate sperm and egg with a fertilized egg is a mistake.
As a simple example, a hen can lay eggs every day, but they are not fertilized. It is only when the rooster visits and the eggs are fertilized, that chickens will develop from those eggs. And voila, the hen gets broody as she follows nature's course.

The trajectory of development of a fertilized egg is rather incredible. Once an egg is fertilized, it quickly begins to divide over and over again and the result is the cells know exactly how to organize themselves into systems that grow and develop into all the systems we have in our adult bodies - nervous system, digestive system, cardiac system and so on. This simply does not happen unless the egg is fertilized.
The being that is created this way has, from the very beginning, completely different DNA from either of its parents. In fact, this fertilized egg sets the course for things that go on in the mother's body, rather the other way around. The fetus determines all sorts of things that happen to "mom" - eg. development of the mammary glands in preparation for nourishing the young being once it leaves the womb.
This process is all rather incredible. When we choose to abort this being, we destroy it and give it no right to live.

How else do we all arrive here except by this process? Far from being a religious viewpoint, I think this is a scientific one.
There are atheist pro-life people in fact, one does not have to believe in God to know that this is a human being developing.

The rate of development is so rapid within the womb, that no other stage of life compares to it.

When we exclude these nascent beings from our definition of life, we are setting the parameters that define life. Where do we stop? To be logical, one has to follow Peter Singer, the philosopher at Princeton University, who says that you can kill off any child before it reaches the age of consciousness. This is where the abortion ideology leads logically. If one can eliminate the child in the womb because you don't think it is a person, then you can move the definition whenever you wish because it is subjective.

It is only by accepting the medical definition of when life begins, that we keep the parameters within bounds.

Whenever societies have wanted to eliminate those they didn't want, the first step was always to dehumanize them. With abortion, we have dehumanized the child in the womb, when we really should be the defenders of those who are most helpless.

Student 0172648 said...

A quick fact check on how it's a "basic biological fact" and "written into every medical text" says that you are, in fact, a liar.

"From a medical standpoint, life begins either 5 weeks post-conception or 10 weeks post conception, depending on who you're talking to. According to medicine, a living being has a beating heart and a working brain. Well, the heart beats at 5 weeks and the brain works at 10 weeks, so an embryo definitely qualifies by 10 weeks, which is when most women first realize they're pregnant.

Other medical professionals will say that life begins when the fetus is viable - that is, when it can survive outside the womb. Well, this age keeps being pushed back - it used to be 27 weeks, then it was 24 weeks, and last October there was a premie born at 22 weeks who is now a happy, healthy one-year-old.

Many people put other dates on when life begins: when baby looks like a baby (12 weeks), when you can tell gender on an ultrasound (15 weeks), or when it officially becomes a fetus (12 weeks)."

This is obtained from someone online with a degree in biology. Yes, anyone can claim that, but this was a pretty easy find when I searched for the unbiased question "What defines life". And it seems quite argued by many medical doctors for a "medical fact". Can you please provide your qualifications on that by the way? Do you really think it helps your cause to blatantly lie?

Honestly, by your definition, a zit is considered a life and I shouldn't pop it.

Julie Culshaw said...

Dr. Alfred Bongioanni, Univ of Pennsylvania "human life begins at the time of conception"

Dr. Jerome Lejeune, prof of genetics at University of Descartes Paris, "after fertilization has taken place a new human being has come into being."

Prof Hymie Gordon, Mayo Clinic
"Life is present from the moment of conception."

Prof Micheline Matthews-Roth, Harvard University Medical School "It is scientifically correct to say that an individual human life begins at conception"

There are many statements such as these from a wide variety of sources. I would recommend a book by Randy Alcorn called ProLife Answers to ProChoice Arguments. Overcome your aversion to the title, as it is a large book with good information. If only to be able to argue successfully with pro-life defenders, it would be worth your reading.

Some medical people like to make a difference between when the fetus is a living being and when a woman is pregnant. These differences are put out there for the sake of being able to terminate pregnancies that are unwanted. So rather than say a woman is carrying a living being, she is described as being pregnant. It is easier to terminate a life when you don't call it a life.

It used to be the case that medical students were taught that human life began at the moment of conception. A few years ago, this was changed to say that human life began when the fertilized egg implanted in the uterine wall. This distinction was made precisely to avoid the problem that arose with hormonal contraception. The birth control pill acts by preventing implantation of a fertilized egg and so it avoided the problem of admitting that the pill does in some cases act as an abortifacient.

To compare a zit with a developing organism inside a woman's uterus is really quite silly. The organism in the womb has the entire blueprint within it to determine its development. A zit is and will only be a zit.
No organism with its own DNA is destroyed when you pop a zit. In an abortion or miscarriage, there is always a life that dies.

Student 0172648 said...

I love how you purposefully miss the point and won't admit you lied.

Julie Culshaw said...

To what are you referring when you said that I lied?