Silent Scream
by
Ted Slater
on Apr 2, 2008 at 4:01 PM
I just watched part of "Silent Scream," a video produced in 1984 by the man who 20 years before had co-founded the National Abortion Rights Action League (NARAL).
The video features a physician who has personally performed thousands of abortions and has overseen tens of thousands of abortions, and has come to see abortion as the taking of a life.
Among other things, he narrates an ultrasound of an actual abortion -- pointing out when the baby pulls away from the tools used to open the cervix, when the baby's tiny mouth opens in apparent fear as the operation continues, when she struggles fruitlessly to escape the suction tube, when her limbs are torn from her body, when her head is floating free in the uterus, when the abortionist crushes the delicate head, and when the last of the bone shards and shreds of flesh and blood are drawn from the uterus.
Medical technology has progressed dramatically in the past 20 years; we can now see these little ones in full 3D! And yet such procedures continue each day to take the lives of thousands of tiny boys and girls. Thousands of little ones who struggle against their abortionists' weapons, even in utero, so eager for that precious day when they might look into their mommies' eyes in loving wonder.
Instead, they end up as hamburger in an abortionist's dumpster.
1. Sarah22 had the following to say on Apr 2 at 4:28 PM:
I have to be honest. I have a lot harder time loving people I know who claim to be saved and yet are pro-choice than I do loving women who have had an abortion.
It offends me that someone who claims to be a fellow brother or sister in Christ, who claims to have the same heavenly Father as me, can go around supporting murder. It makes me sick and I want to say, we do not have the same Father! My Father hates abortion! Am I wrong? I know we are supposed to always love others but it's very difficult for me. I find a lot of anger in my heart towards those people.
2. Jacob had the following to say on Apr 2 at 4:32 PM:
Further proof of the utter barbarity of abortion. This isn't about "a woman's right," it's about the very life of a human being.
3. Ted Slater had the following to say on Apr 2 at 5:04 PM:
I need to add that my heart goes out to those who've had ectopic pregnancies and such. Women who have to make the difficult decision between taking the life within them or allowing that life to take theirs are faced with a horrific dilemma. And as I say, my heart breaks for them.
4. Melissa S. had the following to say on Apr 2 at 5:10 PM:
Wow. I was born in 1984 to Christian parents. They went to a few peaceful abortion sit-down protests and took me along in the stroller. I was too little to remember.
It makes me sad to think of all the other babies my age who never got to grow up.
5. Jerry had the following to say on Apr 2 at 5:17 PM:
This reminded me of a recent news story of a mother who put off her cancer treatments to save her child, and died later from the cancer:
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,325458,00.html
6. Kelly had the following to say on Apr 2 at 7:02 PM:
I want to chime in here with a "Thank you" to God, for opening my eyes on this issue.
For years I lived wavering on the fence on this issue. The argument I would always come back to is this: "What if I were raped? Of course I would not want the baby!"
But God has worked on my heart. He's shown me the wonder of children, even those born into unfortunate circumstances. There's Boundless. God has shown me the beauty and preciousness of ALL HUMAN LIFE, regardless of the circumstances in which they were conceived.
7. Jim H. had the following to say on Apr 2 at 7:31 PM:
Abortion is one of the main reasons I am pessimistic about America's future. I just don't see how God could let the blood of 40 million innocent babies go unavenged. That is over 6X the number of Jews who died in the Holocaust.
Abortion is America's Holocaust. A Holocaust against the most innocent and defenseless of all human beings - unborn children.
8. Leah had the following to say on Apr 2 at 8:18 PM:
Ted- I have to say that in the case of ectopic pregnancies, I don't think there really is much dilemma- it's not "oh I might die, I'd better abort"- it's a case of yes she will most definitely die- it really is either abort or die. Besides, it's guaranteed the foetus will die anyway. No matter what you do, the child will die- it's just a matter of whether you choose to act early enough to save the mother.
In reference to abortion in general, I know a girl whose mother was recommended to abort her because she had a hole in her heart. The doctors said she wouldn't survive once she was born anyway, so her mother may as well abort her.
She's now 16 years old and the perfect image of health. I want to go and wave her under the nose of doctors who try to make definitive 'will die' statements. (Exception being ectopic, because when that becomes dangerous the baby is still far, FAR too underdeveloped to live outside the womb.)
In regards to the Silent Scream video, has anyone seen the picture of Samuel Alexander? (I think that's his name). A surgeon had to do surgery on him when he was still in utero. The photo is of his tiny little hand grasping the finger of the surgeon. He was at the age when many abortions still happen.
9. Mike Theemling had the following to say on Apr 2 at 9:27 PM:
I remember watching this video many years ago. It's interesting how doctors use certain codewords in order to make the abortion appear more benign and detached than it actually is.
It is also very graphic. Even the dated ultrasound makes a convincing argument for how you are murdering a human being, not a lump of tissue.
The doctor at the conclusion of the movie challenges any pro-abortionist to show the footage to a woman before getting an abortion and see if she will still comply (or something to that effect).
10. Andrew had the following to say on Apr 2 at 9:44 PM:
I remember reading a convincing argument against abortion (not that I need to be convinced that abortion is wrong).
The writer said that while discussing abortion with supporters of abortion rights, they will reluctantly admit that they do not know the precise time in the pregnancy when the fetus becomes a human being.
The writer, a hunter, made an excellent illustration. If a hunter in the woods hears rustling leaves, he must wait until he knows what is making the noise before he shoots. The noise could be caused by a deer, a dog, or a human. The uncertainty that the creature in the woods is not human is enough for a hunter to hold his fire.
If hunters hold their fire because they might be shooting at a human, then why is it acceptable to kill a developing fetus, who might (in the eyes of abortion activists) be human? On this issue and countless others, people are intellectually dishonest to the extreme.
11. EKB had the following to say on Apr 2 at 9:58 PM:
Sarah22- I sympathize with your feelings on this issue. Just last night, I had a lengthy conversation with another Christian who is pro-choice, and I found it difficult to balance arguing my pro-life views with maintaining Christian charity toward him. A part of me feels that it isn't possible to be Christian and pro-choice, but we all have blind spots, and sadly some of our brothers and sisters do not understand the tragedy of this culture of death.
Ted- Interesting tangent. I have conflicting thoughts on this issue. I realize that ectopic pregnancies are nearly always fatal to the mother and baby, yet I have heard of at least one case where the baby survived. However, the odds of this were only given as 1 in 60 million. Because of this tiny but real chance of a miracle, is a woman obligated to not treat the ectopic pregnancy?
I don't think there are any easy answers here, but the best solution I have heard is that it is justifiable to remove the diseased tube to save the life of the mother, but not to directly abort the baby. This is because of the principle of the double effect, as the death of the embryo is an unintended consequence of the procedure, whereas a normal abortion is a direct attack on the innocent life of the child.
I can't imagine how hard it would be to make this decision. What do other pro-lifer think of this issue? It is hard because I like to say that I don't think abortion is ever justified, with no exceptions, but I think this issue is more complicated.
12. Becky F. had the following to say on Apr 2 at 10:48 PM:
My brother-in-law's mom was pregnant with his younger sister when she had breast cancer. She lived a few years, but then died from the cancer, and her daughter is now about 16 years old, a beautiful girl, and is an excellent basketball player. Their mom, in a way, sacrificed herself for her daughter to have the life that she does. Here's a blog about her posted by her oldest daughter, since she died 14 years ago
13. charlotte had the following to say on Apr 3 at 5:12 AM:
I enjoy Boundless greatly and the don't want to devalue the time and effort that went into creating this blog post, Ted, but I think that the idea that these children struggle because they are "so eager for that precious day when they might look into their mommies' eyes in loving wonder" is pure speculation. We have no idea whether children 'in utero' can even comprehend the concept of 'mommy', let alone 'loving wonder', and to claim otherwise, particularly using such emotive language, borders on the (unintentionally) manipulative does it not? I'm not debating the innate value of these children, just the fact that you are projecting your own human experiences and motivations onto them. The facts of abortion speak for themselves and, yes, a greater understanding of what is at stake is reached when we engage with our hearts, but we need to be careful that we are engaging both our head and our heart at the same time, working with the facts rather than what fits our viewpoint.
Also, and this is a genuine question, are you aware that there are women who have chosen to abort a child who will read this post? Do you consider that when you write? If so, what do you expect their reaction to be to a piece like this? I'm thinking that speaking of an aborted child as 'hamburger in an abortionists dumpster' would be a provocative statement to any woman who had chosen to abort, regardless of whether she had recived and understood the grace and forgiveness of God.
I really hope and pray that this has come across in the right way, I don't make these points to be inflammatory or for the sake of argument but rather to come to a better understanding of Boundless and, hopefully, a greater refinement of the way in which we reflect our Lord through our writing (I am a writer myself, so discussing and understanding these points helps me to learn too!)
14. Julia had the following to say on Apr 3 at 7:36 AM:
My little sister is a laboratory technician and she once described to me the horror of the aftermath of abortion. As a part of her job she is required to manually sort through the abortion "products" and account for each individual baby part. She must identify the head, arms, legs and torso to make sure that it is all removed before "disposal." She assures me that, yes, it looks exactly like a baby. How heartbreaking.
15. Claire had the following to say on Apr 3 at 9:21 AM:
EKB (#11),
I agree that the issue of ectopic pregnancies is extrememly difficult, and I honestly am not sure what I would do if I were in that situation (I am prolife by the way), but as I was thinking on it this verse did come to mind:
"Greater love has no man than this than that he lay down his life for his friend."
16. Bethany had the following to say on Apr 3 at 9:31 AM:
Ted, great post.
Depending on one's view of the beginning of life, some say that an ectopic pregnancy is not actually life yet since it has not implanted into the uterus. I don't hold to that view myself. I'm curious about the information EKB/#11 had up there about there being viable ectopic pregnancies? I have never heard that, and I have studied plenty in this subject. There is no way to "save" an ectopic pregnancy, so it is not a matter of "mother or baby" at all. The surgery that happens in this case should not be referred to as an abortion, although that is the medically correct terminology (but a miscarriage can also be called an abortion).
17. Jim H. had the following to say on Apr 3 at 9:58 AM:
Charlotte #13,
Regardless of the cognitive ability of the unborn child, he/she is still human and abortion is murder.
Recall Jeremiah 1:5
“ Before I formed you in the womb I knew you,
and before you were born I consecrated you;
I appointed you a prophet to the nations.”
The Holy Bible : English standard version. 2001
God knows us even before we are conceived and it is clear to me that He views abortion as despicable.
I do feel bad for women who have undergone abortions and are repentant. I hope they find comfort in the arms of their forgiving Heavenly Father. He will forgive you. But I am also sick of our culture (and indeed some churches) whitewashing this unspeakable evil. If more women were told the truth of the horror of abortion, maybe there would be fewer abortions in the first place.
And for those women (and men who are complicit in the abortion decision) who are unrepentant, you SHOULD feel terrible guilt because you have snuffed out an innocent life and tried to play God with another human being.
18. tom had the following to say on Apr 3 at 10:01 AM:
Leah (#8) is correct. An ectopic pregnancy will always take the life of both mother and baby.
That is why it is one of only two exceptions the Roman Catholic Church allows for abortions (the other is uterine cancer during pregnancy, which will also kill both).
19. Carrie (the original) had the following to say on Apr 3 at 10:09 AM:
Charlotte (#13):
We have no idea whether children 'in utero' can even comprehend the concept of 'mommy'
Never mind the fact that there is an inexplicable bond that is formed between mother and child in the womb. The child is getting to know the one who is nuturing them and providing a haven for them to develop. Yes, let's set the aside and ignore it. It makes life much easier.
I'm thinking that speaking of an aborted child as 'hamburger in an abortionists dumpster' would be a provocative statement to any woman who had chosen to abort
And hopefully any woman that would consider aborting or man that has condoned such activity, stood by, and done nothing. That's the point. Ted wouldn't say such a thing carelessly.
You see, "pro-lifers" love their emotional language that gets to the heart of matter just as much as the "pro-choicers" loves their carefully cold and vague language that leaves out the human heart. Speaking of human heart, that is what starts developing before the mother is aware she is pregnant. That is what abortionists seek to stop beating.
Oh, there I go with my emotional language. . .shame on me.
20. charlotte had the following to say on Apr 3 at 12:40 PM:
Jim (#17):
I obviously have not expressed myself very well if I came across as devaluing the life of a child in what I said, for which I genuinely apologise. I chose not to expand on the fact that I am pro-life because, like I said, I am not debating the value of these children, my point was that it seemed to me that Ted was assigning to these unborns a motivation that we cannot be certain of and, as much as I am desperate for men and women to understand the tragedy of abortion, I think we should be careful of that. So yes, I completely agree with your point and with your scripture reference but I think you're reacting to a different point than the one I was making.
Carrie (the original) (#19):
"Yes, let's set that aside and ignore it. It makes life much easier"
this honestly is not my intention, I think I have alot to learn about the art of communication! Re-reading my comment, I don't think I expressed myself very well - apologies for that. My intention was not to devalue the mother/child bond nor the life of the child herself but to question whether we can say for certain her reasons for struggling are because she is "eager for that precious day when they might look into her mommies' eyes in loving wonder"? I am all for engaging the heart of this matter and would never want to approach it coldly - I'm just raising the point that I think we need to be careful that what we write reflects truth, whether or not we use emotive language, (which, by the way, I am not against!). And, by the way, it might well be that Ted's point *is* truth, it's just that a truth I don't yet know. In which case, please forgive my ignorance.
21. Ted Slater had the following to say on Apr 3 at 1:29 PM:
Charlotte -- I appreciate your humility and inquisitiveness.
Motte and I discussed that phrase before we published this particular blog post, which tells me that it was a fairly provocative thing to write. You're not the first to question it.
Newborns have a rooting instinct. A newborn "just know" that she's to root around for her mommy's breast. The baby is looking to her mommy for sustenance, for protection, for direction, and so on. I believe that, though they are very undeveloped, the baby's emotions are directed toward the mommy, and that during a good nursing they are positive emotions. I'd even say that these emotions are a rudimentary expression of love. That's what I was getting at.
Of course, a baby can't see well for some time after they're born. They can't focus, for example. So "look into their mommies' eyes" was a bit of literary license. Maybe it's better to say that the baby is looking *toward* their mommy's eyes. :-)
Regardless, it's clear from the video that this particular baby did not want to die. She knew that something better was out there than death.
Hope that provides some clarification, Charlotte!
22. Michele Samuelson had the following to say on Apr 3 at 1:30 PM:
Leah #8 -
I've seen that picture. The child in the picture had been diagnosed with Spina Bifida, the same birth defect my little brother has. It always moves me to tears to look at that picture. Just last year I heard about a woman who had a selective abortion when one of the twins she was carrying was diagnosed with Spina Bifida. It made me so sad when I thought of the advances that have been made, and yet there are still those who would eradicate the hurt or imperfect before they have a chance to breathe.
23. EKB had the following to say on Apr 3 at 1:35 PM:
Tom and Leah- I have also heard that ectopic pregnancies are always fatal to the mother and child, so I think I should give sources for my claim that there are (extremely rare) instances of survival.
http://www.prolifephysicians.org/rarecases.htm
(read the last section of the article)
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/health/443373.stm
My question is this: Does the tiny chance of the child surviving make it immoral to abort? Honestly, I don't know, and I pray I never have to make that decision.
24. Jim H. had the following to say on Apr 3 at 2:40 PM:
Charlotte,
Thank you for the additional clarification on your position.
I guess I just don't understand the point of debating what an unborn baby can and cannot experience at any given time during the pregnancy. He/she is a human being from the point of conception with all the associated rights and protections. And God of course knows the child and what he/she will become even BEFORE conception as the passage in Jeremiah clearly states.
The other thing I was reacting to was your suggestion that we should be more sensitive on this issue. I would argue the opposite. Call it what it is and expose it in all its naked horror. Maybe fewer babies would be aborted if the reality of abortion was fully understood. Instead many people try to veil the evil of abortion with euphemistic language - "product of conception," fetus, "tissue," etc. instead of "unborn baby."
The bottom line is that people SHOULD understand abortion for unbridled evil that it is and be outraged.
And for those who have had abortions and are repentant, there is forgiveness, comfort and possibly restoration from our loving Heavenly Father.
25. Kristal had the following to say on Apr 3 at 3:21 PM:
I think the name of the little boy who was pictured grasping the doctor's finger was Samuel Armas:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Samuel_Armas
26. Jo had the following to say on Apr 3 at 4:16 PM:
Charlotte (#13) - I thought your post was completely clear and I understood exactly what you were getting at.
Ted (#21) -
"Of course, a baby can't see well for some time after they're born. They can't focus, for example. So "look into their mommies' eyes" was a bit of literary license. Maybe it's better to say that the baby is looking *toward* their mommy's eyes. :-)"
I'm not sure of the timescales here but according to what I've learned, babies can focus from quite early on, but only over a short distance - coincidentally this is the approximate distance between their face and their mother's face while they're breastfeeding. Also they are attracted to face-type images, and are especially attracted to eyes. Give a baby a normal teddy bear or a Mickey Mouse and the mouse will be preferred, because of the large eyes. Yay for God's fabulous designing! :)
27. W. Hank Balch had the following to say on Apr 3 at 4:49 PM:
Jim H (#7) -
"I just don't see how God could let the blood of 40 million innocent babies go unavenged."
We know God is a God of Justice. Perfect justice. Better than we can imagine. And we also know that all grace that comes to us, and to the world has been purchased in the shed blood of Jesus Christ. As Charles Spurgeon once noted, "Sinner, the fact that you are alive proves that God is not dealing with you according to strict justice, but in patient forbearance; every moment you live is another instance of omnipotent long-suffering. It is the sacrifice of Christ that arrests the axe of justice, which else must execute you." We are indeed called to yearn for and seek out justice (Psalm 72), but it must never become a Christ-less justice, that moves beyond the shadow of the cross.
---
Murder for life
Also, on the issue of abortion for the life of the mother (which is what killing a human embryo is - even for ectopic pregnancies) I've written a post about it here.
If we grant that life begins at conception, then regardless of where that conception occurs, we are bound to abide by the Sixth commandment (Thou shall not kill) and not willfully murder it. God never promised us lives above suffering, and in the context of child bearing, he actually 'promised' the opposite: "To the woman he said, "I will surely multiply your pain in childbearing; in pain you shall bring forth children..." (Gen 3:16)
28. charlotte had the following to say on Apr 3 at 4:52 PM:
Ted (#21)
I'm relieved you understood the heart behind the question, the clarification helped greatly. thanks :)
29. Alison had the following to say on Apr 3 at 5:11 PM:
EKB (#23): Wow. I have NEVER heard of ectopic pregnancies ending like this before. I honestly don't know what to conclude. I am staunchly pro-life, but this issue has me a bit muddled. I have always thought that there was ZERO chance of an ectopic pregnancy ending with a live birth. I thought it was a choice between 1 death or 2 deaths. A close friend of mine recently had an ectopic pregnancy and had the pregnancy terminated. I mourned over the lost child and for my friend's loss, but I didn't believe she made the wrong decision. And, actually, in her case, the surgery to remove her fallopian tube revealed an infection that could easily have taken her life if it had gone undiscovered. The doctor told her she was "lucky" to have had the complication; otherwise, they would never have known about the infection. So there was no hope of the child surviving AT ALL. Another woman at my church has had an ectopic pregnany terminated as well. I pray I will never have to face this question myself.
30. Leah had the following to say on Apr 3 at 8:57 PM:
EKB- *If* an ectopic prenancy became dangerous when the child was old enough to survive outside the womb, then there may be a bit more confusion in the decision. (the first link you gave was not about a baby surviving an ectopic pregnancy- it was about the doctor accidentally aborting two babies instead of one).
However, a vast, vast, VAST majority of ectopic pregnancies happen (or become dangerous) when the baby is still EXTREMELY underdeveloped and would never survive outside the womb. There is no way to save these children.
I also must confess I was not familiar with the practice of aborting ectopic pregnancies before they became dangerous, although it does not surprise me that it happens. I've only heard about when the tube ruptures, or is about to rupture. In these instances, (and as i said earlier, it's always before the baby is able to survive outside the womb) there is no chance of the baby surviving. It's either sit back and do nothing and allow mother and baby to die, or remove the tube (and foetus), allowing the mother to live.
31. Carrie Lea had the following to say on Apr 4 at 2:23 PM:
charlotte,
The information on pregnancy that I've read supports what Ted Slater (#21) said about the rooting instinct, and what Jo (#26) said about the baby's eyes focusing at a distance where the mother's eyes will be during breastfeeding. I've also read that the baby's sense of hearing develops a few months before she's born, so she can recognize the mother's voice (and maybe even the father's). A baby in the womb will also react to outside stimulation such as lights, sounds, and touching or rubbing the woman's abdomen.
I can see your point about the way Mr. Slater worded that sentence -- I don't think I would have put it that way. To me, just reading the description of the baby's reaction to the "procedure" made my blood run cold. The baby has spent her entire short life in a warm, cushioned, and nurturing environment; suddenly, with no provocation, she is subjected to a kind of torment and fear that even murderous criminals on death row in the U.S. are not expected to endure.
A preborn baby may not yet know enough to truly long to look into her mother's eyes. However, I wouldn't be surprised if she could truly feel the pain of betrayal, even in a basic and instinctive sense.
32. Bethany had the following to say on Apr 4 at 11:56 PM:
Another way to look at an ectopic pregnancy is that of triage.
Or the example of a vehicle accident where there are two patients, and the saving of the one will result in the death of the other. It is not that the rescuers are intentionally killing the second patient at all, but rather that there was indeed *NO WAY* that they could have saved both. So they work as hard as possible to save the one and look for as many solutions as possible to change the circumstances and save both... But the end results still may be the death of one patient.
The link that EKB provided in post 23 was a good analysis and conclusion.
33. Kevin Torres had the following to say on Apr 5 at 8:34 AM:
Thank you for raising our awareness of this issue.
We have to get the word out that "the unborn is a human life."
34. Heidi had the following to say on Apr 5 at 9:42 AM:
On the issue of ectopic pregnancy, has anyone in the medical world ever considered a careful surgical operation removing the "embryo" (baby) from the wrong place and then placing it inside the uterus? With in vitro fertilization they use a catheter to place the "embryos" in the uterus while 2-8 cells old. And while the baby in an ectopic pregnancy would be a bit larger, wouldn't it be possible to try?