By Peter Heck
She’s become the popular, go-to, online source for all abortion fanatics desperate for some medical terminology to throw around as a substitute for the moral, scientific, and constitutional justification they lack in making the case for destroying life in the womb.
She’s obviously smart, witty, and knows the world of gynecology far better than most. Unfortunately, even those impressive attributes don’t help that much when you’re attempting to defend the indefensible.
Angry about the filing of another “heartbeat” bill, a law that would prohibit abortion of any human life in the womb that has a distinct and separate heartbeat from the mother, Gunter begged the press to call the laws, “fetal pole cardiac activity” bills, and then went for broke:
The @GOP wants a 3 mm fetal pole to have more rights than a pregnant person.
Don’t be confused by the term “pole.” She is referencing the earliest form a human embryo distinguishable on ultrasound, being cautious to avoid any terminology that sounds personal. It’s a fools game of semantics though, and while Gunter is smart enough to know that, she is banking on those who follow her not to be.
Obviously just like the terms adolescent, adult, and elderly don’t refer to nonhumans, but rather are used to describe human beings at particular stages of their life development, the same is true for zygote, embryo, fetus, or yes, even “fetal pole.” Those terms do not refer to nonhumans; they refer to human beings are particular stages (albeit very early stages) of their life development. Human beings don’t become less human as they age and some of their life processes and systems slow or fail. And human beings aren’t less human as they wait to age and for some of their systems to develop.
This isn’t hard.
Furthermore, Gunter’s statement is factually incorrect. What pro-life people desire is not for a human embryo to have more rights than a pregnant person, but rather equal rights. Again, Gunter knows that, but she’s posturing for her fan base. So be it, but it’s important to reiterate: a human embryo should not have the right to destroy another human being. Neither should a pregnant lady. That isn’t more protection under the law, it’s equal protection.
Gunter is far from the only person making vapid intellectual and moral claims to try to justify the repugnant act of child killing for convenience. In fact, she is merely taking her place right alongside slave owners, Nazis, Hutus, and countless others throughout history who used dehumanizing labels to reduce those they sought to destroy to subhuman.
Barring repentance, that is the sad legacy that Dr. Gunter has chosen to forge.