About the Author
Opinion Archives
E-mail Scott
Scott's Links

America's #1 abortion provider on "personhood"

By Scott Tibbs, May 13, 2005

PlannedParenthood.org has the following quote in response to a question on when life begins: The really hot question is, When does being a person begin?" Most medical authorities and Planned Parenthood agree that it starts when a baby takes its first breath.

Personhood, according to PP's "logic", can begin at more than one point in human development. If a baby is born a month premature, he or she is a "person", but a baby that is three weeks older is not a "person" if he or she goes full-term. Anyone can see why this makes no sense.

Talking about "personhood" is a convenient way to weasel out of the question of exactly what (or, more accurately, who) is being destroyed when an abortionist rips a baby limb from limb, rips out a baby's brain and crushes his or her skull, or soaks a baby in acid.

Nazi Germany did not say that Jews were not alive. They did, however, demonize Jews as less than human. To the Nazis, Jews were rats and parasites. This is similar to the way some extreme "pro-choice" people describe unborn babies. To them, an unborn baby is like a tapeworm, stealing nutrients from the mother's body.

We saw "personhood" being used to justify the torture-slaying of Terri Schiavo in a Florida hospice. Because of a traumatic brain injury, Schiavo was no longer a "person" and there was no moral problem with murdering her via starvation and dehydration.

Planned Parenthood knows they are losing the debate over where life begins. Modern medical technology shows us what an unborn baby looks like. There is no question that what we see in those pictures is a human being. Furthermore, sites like www.CBRinfo.org show in graphic detail the horrific results of what Planned Parenthood does. Because they are losing, Planned Parenthood is trying to change the "rules".

Shifting the focus from when life begins to when "personhood" begins can have disastrous results. Peter Singer, a psychotic "professor" at Princeton University, argues that the murder of disabled infants is morally acceptable. He uses a variation of the "personhood" argument to explain why murdering infants "cannot be equated with killing normal human beings, or any other self-conscious beings." Few people take Peter Singer (a truly depraved pervert who also believes beastiality is A-OK) seriously, but his arguments on infanticide are not that far apart from Planned Parenthood's "personhood begins at birth" inanity.

Planned Parenthood's diversionary tactics aside, basic biology tells us when life begins. When a sperm cell meets an egg, the two join and an entirely new being is formed. That being has a completely new, unique DNA sequence from the mother. That being, given the right circumstances, will then grow develop through the stages of life, from embryo to fetus to infant to child to adult.

Why does PP want to shift the focus from when life begins to when "personhood" begins? Planned Parenthood's own Web site states that "(Emergency Contraception) prevents pregnancy by stopping ovulation, fertilization, or implantation." (Emphasis is mine.) PlannedParenthood.org also states that the birth control pill "can also prevent fertilized eggs from implanting in the uterus."

Planned Parenthood's attempt to change the rules in the middle of the game represents a fundamental dishonesty. Is it any wonder why so many pro-life people do not want the Bloomington City Council to give Planned Parenthood an annual handout of taxpayer money?