Journalistic Magicians
How the Times Turned a Fetus into a Baby
Every once in a while, I reject all manner of common sense and enter a social media discussion in defense of the pro-life view. I often regret doing so soon after typing my first comment. But something inside me demands that I at least finish the discussion before stepping away and vowing never to do something like that again. Weeks or months later, for reasons I find hard to explain, the cycle continues.
I realize this is most likely an effort in futility. But each time, Greg Koukl’s words echo in my mind, encouraging me with the far-off hope that I may at least be “putting a stone in someone’s shoe” — leaving them with something to think about — a small doubt that will someday blossom into a real change of heart.
One can hope.
I share this confession for just one reason — and this is not hyperbolic. In all those discussions over all those years, every single abortion supporter I have ever encountered has used at least one of the following euphemisms to dismiss my claim that the unborn are valuable human beings just like the rest of us:
“The unborn is not alive! It’s a ‘potential’ life.” This one is even used by those in the Francis Collins camp — Christians who are “personally pro-life.” For some reason, these folks don’t want to impose their view — that killing innocent human beings is wrong — on anyone else. But it’s a scientific fact that life begins at the moment of conception. You can read about it in any embryology textbook. And that means it’s not a potential life. It’s an actual life.
“It’s not a person; it’s a fetus.” These folks apparently believe a fetus is a thing of its own. They don’t realize the definition of a fetus is “the unborn young of a viviparous vertebrate having a basic structural resemblance to the adult animal.” A fetus is not a thing; it’s a stage in the development of a thing. And, in the case of abortion, that “thing” is a developing human being.
“It’s just a ‘clump of cells!” Technically, they’re right of course. But somehow, they’ve lost the fact that they could also be considered a “clump of cells.” I mean, all of us are clumps of cells. But, just like the unborn human being, those cells are connected together in a complete, whole, integrated organism that is functioning exactly as it should at whatever stage of development it happens to be in.
I’m not kidding. Every interaction I’ve ever had with anyone online includes at least one of these euphemisms from the abortion defender. It’s a hallmark of their position. And the media repeats it every chance they get.
But this week, I saw a new twist on this trend when the New York Times weighed in once again in the battle over unborn human beings. And I point this out without any commentary on the political nature of the discussion. That’s not the issue.
What I want you to see is the magic trick the Times pulled off when it transformed the worthless fetus/potential human life/clump of cells into an actual, valuable human being.
But only when it suited the Times’ purpose, of course.
It’s Only a Fetus!
To demonstrate the trick, let me use just one example — a quote from an August 2022 story they published titled, “Is a Fetus a Person? An Anti-Abortion Strategy Says Yes.”
Fetal personhood, which confers legal rights from conception, is an effort to push beyond abortion bans and classify the procedure as murder. In Georgia, it also means a $3,000 tax credit.
The Times’ goal here was clear. They wanted to expose the nefarious tactics of pro-lifers who try to guilt opponents of abortion into thinking the lowly fetus is in some way a “person.” Using this tactic, pro-lifers wrongly impede the right to abortion by classifying women’s reproductive health choices as “murder.”
Who would resort to such lowly tactics?
Well, it turns out the New York Times would. Therein lies the magic trick.
They’re Valuable Children!
Just a few days ago, while engrossed in the arguments about renewed efforts by the Trump administration to deport “undocumented workers,” the Times published another story, this one in defense of “birthright citizenship.” This story, titled, “Undocumented Women Ask: Will My Unborn Child Be a Citizen?” finds it appalling that the federal government would deny citizenship rights to unborn children who, the Times believes, deserve that citizenship in light of being babies who are already on American soil even if they’re still inside their mother’s wombs.
Do you see the trick?
Journalistic Magic
When the New York Times wants to protect abortion “rights,” it dehumanizes unborn children.
But when the New York Times wants to support birthright citizenship, it magically turns those same “clumps of cells” into citizens with rights.
Again, I am not wading into the politics of either position. My point is simply to illustrate that the New York Times’ hypocrisy is as massive as its moral reasoning is microscopic. And there are plenty of people who will join right in with them.
It’s the reason Frank Turek has famously said that he reads both the Bible and the New York Times every day … so he knows what both sides are up to.
Thank you for your article Bob! It sometimes seems like it’s along uphill battle, carrying the world on our shoulders when it comes to the abortion versus pro-life issue. But John reminded me again recently that education and a change of heart is what is needed. That involves not only politicians, teachers, pastors, but parents. Are we teaching the next generation about when life begins or are we too afraid to talk to our children about God, sex and His wisdom and truth about when life begins?
Sorry I can't note the original source, but I recently read that while filming microscopic fertilization, they noticed that at the exact moment a sperm cell penetrates the egg, there is a visible flash of light emitted over the entire surface of the egg. While it's not likely to convince a non believer, it adds to my amazement. We've known for decades that the egg locks out additional potential fertilizers. But that it includes a flash of light just adds to its designed marvel.