The Point: Hey, That’s a Baby!

Hey, that’s a baby there! For the Colson Center, I’m John Stonestreet with The Point.

As Fiona Petrie and her family walked through a theme park in the UK, one that had a thermal imaging camera gimmick going on, they looked up, and there they all were—Fiona and her two—oh, wait—make that three kids.

Fiona, you see, was expecting her third child. And the baby was clearly visible in the thermal image.

Naturally, Fiona and the kids were thrilled. So was a theme park employee, who was delighted that Fiona’s two sons “were unexpectedly able to meet their new baby brother or sister during their big day out.”

As the folks at LiveAction.org put it, the thermal image proves yet again that preborn babies are human beings. “The outline of the preborn child can be clearly seen and is evidence that life does indeed begin inside the womb. Preborn children are not just ‘clumps of cells’ or ‘tissue’ that the abortion industry would have everyone believe them to be.”

Come to BreakPoint.org and we’ll link you to the story . . . as well as the picture of the baby.

Resources

Mother catches a glimpse of preborn baby on theme park’s thermal camera
  • Nancy Flanders | LiveAction.org | September 20, 2017

2017-10-06 11:00:24

Comment Policy: Commenters are welcome to argue all points of view, but they are asked to do it civilly and respectfully. Comments that call names, insult other people or groups, use profanity or obscenity, repeat the same points over and over, or make personal remarks about other commenters will be deleted. After multiple infractions, commenters may be banned.

  • Phoenix1977

    “Hey, that’s a baby there!”
    No, it’s a fetus. It’s a baby after it’s born, not before.

    • Tyler

      Would you reserve the right to not consider my 6 month old a baby, because he’s technically an infant? Point being, calling a preborn baby a “fetus” doesn’t make them a non-baby. I was a fetus until I was 39 weeks. My friend Grace was a fetus until she was 26 weeks, when she was born prematurely. Was she any less of a baby at 27 weeks than I was at 40?

      • Zarm

        Indeed, that’s like saying “This is a homo sapien, not a human” or “This is a feline, not a cat.” The scientific term used for one does not preclude it also being the other, and the terminology used also doesn’t change the nature of the being that’s being discussed. ‘Fetus’ is a label used for scientific classification, but it doesn’t define (or even judge) the nature of the being it’s referencing, nor have any bearing on their humanity or status as a child.

        • Phoenix1977

          “‘Fetus’ is a label used for scientific classification, but it doesn’t define (or even judge) the nature of the being it’s referencing, nor have any bearing on their humanity or status as a child.”
          Not entirely accurate. The word “fetus” says nothing about the species, although I would be quite alarmed if a human female would carry a feline fetus.

      • Phoenix1977

        No, you were both a baby the moment you were born but not a second earlier. Gestational period has nothing to do with it.

    • Steve

      Since you are into calling people out on terminology, Phoenix, is the fetus a human fetus?
      If it is not human, then what is it? If it is human, then why can it have its life ended by abortion?
      Does the small size, level of development, environment in which it lives and degree if dependency mean its life can be taken away?

      • Phoenix1977

        “Does the small size, level of development, environment in which it lives and degree if dependency mean its life can be taken away?”
        Mostly the level of development and, therefor, the degree of dependency. Medically the line is pretty much drawn the moment the fetus can sustain it’s own biological processes.

      • gladys1071

        Steve

        You fail to grasp the concept that you cannot force a woman to gestate for 9 months if she does not want to. Whether or not it is human, it still does not change the fact that a woman has the right as being the uterus owner to expel an unwanted gestation.

    • Steve

      So it transforms into a baby when it passes down the birth canal? What exactly changes during that descent other than being disconnected from the umbilical cord and being in a different environment?

      • Phoenix1977

        “What exactly changes during that descent other than being disconnected from the umbilical cord and being in a different environment?”
        Exactly that. It becomes both a biological and legal individual. As long as the umbilical cord is intact the fetus is considered part of the women’s body.

  • Grant Family Pastures

    Phoenix1977, the scientific evidence is so clear that it’s a baby (a living person) inside womb (i.e. heartbeat @ 18 days old), I can’t take you or anyone serious with those kind of liberal dogmatic statements. It’s clear that you are simply posting these things on a conservative viewpoint site just to get a rise out of folks. Feel free to stop. Comments like that beyond intellectually dishonest.

    • Gina Dalfonzo

      I’d appreciate if you wouldn’t tell other commenters to stop posting. That’s the moderator’s job, should it become necessary. Thanks.

    • Steve

      The problem with liberal progressives is that if they give an inch towards the truth their argument falls apart. They cannot admit that a pre-born child is a baby because not only does it make an admission of humanity but it humanizes the individual.
      Rather, they need to use sterile language to dehumanize. Perhaps it even makes them feel better about supporting what they know is wrong.
      Planned Parenthood’s language regarding abortion is especially telling.
      This is similar to what was done during slavery to justify it. They claimed the slaves were sub-human.
      The Nazis did this as well to the Jews, gypsies and disabled.
      Someone posting such doublespeak just shines the light on their obfuscation.

      • Phoenix1977

        “Rather, they need to use sterile language to dehumanize.”
        Yes, that is called professional detachment. Quite common for doctors, as you should know.

        “They claimed the slaves were sub-human.”
        Actually, they used to bible as proof that slaves (all non-whites, actually) were sub-human.

    • Steve

      Don’t bother him with science, it messes up his ideology.

    • Phoenix1977

      Both biologists and doctors refer to any human unborn offspring as a fetus. So I don’t know what medical journals or textbooks you have been reading, but, as a doctor myself, I think I know how doctors address the inhabitant of a womb.

  • Phoenix1977

    You can refer to them any way you like. Medically and biologically speaking it would be wrong, though.

    • Tyler

      All you’re really saying is “scientists call it a fetus in the womb, a baby outside,” so you haven’t actually made your argument any stronger or responded meaningfully to anyone else’s argument. I would do the same, and my arguement still makes sense. “Our fetus is 8 months old, she’s a girl, her name is June, she’s got a brain and a heartbeat, and a functioning digestive system, she sleeps, she eats, we saw her suck her thumb on the ultrasound.” Baby before birth, and after.

      • Phoenix1977

        And yet, medical and biological science dictates when a fetus is a fetus and when a baby is a baby. You might not agree with it but good luck finding an OB/GYN calling your fetus a baby before it’s born.

        • Tyler

          There’s a difference between what is labeled and what is objectively true. In that sense, I wouldn’t even disagree that a before a baby is born that it is a fetus, I never argued that at all. My argument is that calling something a fetus doesn’t make it a non-person. I was a fetus, you were a fetus, all of us were, and yet just as much human and deserving of not-being-killed as anyone else. It’s a distinction without a difference. It’s like when my grandma is telling a story and she says “this nice Indian college student.” He’s a college student as much as the Asian and white and black college students.

  • gladys1071

    In all of this discussion about abortion, what is forgotten is the person doing the gestating. Whether what a woman is carrying is a human, dog or cat, it does NOT CHANGE the fact that a woman can refuse to gestate a pregnancy that she does not want.

    So the big elephant in the room that nobody likes to discuss is the woman and the fact that she has bodily rights, as the OWNER of her uterus, she has the right to expel an unwanted gestation from her body.

  • Gina Dalfonzo

    Gladys, you are heading toward bashing territory. Please tone it down.

    • gladys1071

      Oh so its ok for conservatives to bash liberals?

      • Gina Dalfonzo

        I didn’t say it was. As you know, part of the definition of “bashing” as we talk about it here means condemning an entire group. You just claimed that pro-life conservatives/Christians as a group dehumanize women. That’s bashing. Don’t do it.

        • gladys1071

          Gina, you really are not being impartial in your moderation. You allow bashing of liberal progressives, as the previous commentor did, which i was responding too.

          • Gina Dalfonzo

            Fine — nobody bash anybody else, period. Got it? Good.

  • Phoenix1977

    You do know what we doctors refers to unborn fetuses as fetuses, right? Because about 1/3 of all human pregnancies end in miscarriage (interestingly enough, that is called abortion in medcine; the thing conservative refer to as abortion is actually APLA (abortus provocatus lege artis; or provoked abortion by the book). So why add to someone’s misery if their pregnancy fails or if they see the need to terminate the pregnancy? To refer to the fetus as fetus we try to make the unbearable more bearable.

    • Gina Dalfonzo

      Do you really think the parents’ misery in such cases is about *language*?

    • Zarm

      Spontaneous chemical abortions, for instance. Yes. My wife and I went through one two years ago today. And I can tell you that although we’d only known for a few days and the pregnancy was only a few weeks old, that was very much a baby that we lost. That’s the thing about pro-choice terminology; it’s only for people that want to discard their baby. No one who would actually be upset by losing their child ever refers to or thinks of them as a fetus, or a clump of cells, or any of the other popular dehumanizing-terminologies in the first place. Those are for the ones outside trying to justify voluntarily ending those lives.

      Regardless, even if that were the case, it’s not a matter of comfort but of truth. Why add to an abolitionist’s misery by referring to a slave as ‘a human being’ when they aren’t to free them? Because that’s *what they are*. Denying someone’s personhood doesn’t make them non-human, it just makes the denier wrong.

      I have no problem with the use of scientific terminology; I only object to implying that it has any bearing on the actual nature of the subject being discussed. What science chooses to call a pre-born baby has no impact on whether they are actually human, actually a person, actually someone’s child. Too often, I see it used that way; ‘It’s not a baby, it’s a fetus,’ as if applying a scientific name to something or someone actually changes their basic nature or precludes any other truth about them.