Chelsea Clinton’s pregnancy and the problem of wantedness

When Chelsea Clinton announced last week that she was pregnant, pro-lifers everywhere immediately noticed the irony in Chelsea referring to her offspring as a “child,” when abortion advocates like herself opt for the word “fetus” when it suits them. They are quick to gush over their own pre-planned children and babies, but when defending a woman’s right to kill her offspring, the babies aren’t babies; they’re fetuses. The pro-abortion side has cried foul over pro-lifers noticing the dichotomy, but their explanation for the divorced terms has yet to add up. Think Progress attempts to explain where pro-lifers are supposedly wrong:

Abortion opponents expressed confusion that the Clintons would refer to Chelsea’s unborn child as a “baby” and not a “fetus,” suggesting that’s wholly incompatible with their support for legal abortion. “When it’s their own grandchild, it appears the Clintons see things differently, with their words most definitely betraying their true feelings on the matter. No talk of a non-person fetus, only of a child,” a Christian Post editorial noted, declaring that the Clintons must actually believe that life begins at conception.

The insinuation, of course, is that the people who support abortion rights must always opt for abortion over pregnancy. But that’s an incredibly black-and-white view of reproductive rights that doesn’t actually reflect the reality of Americans’ experiences — including the women who have chosen to end a pregnancy at some point in their lives.

The piece went on to swim in the theory that, although most Americans identify themselves as pro-life, they aren’t actually against abortion. We’ve heard the speech; most people can be convinced that an exception for rape is humane, for example. In reality, “reproductive rights” issues (read: abortion) are incredibly black-and-white. There is nothing more black and white than hanging an innocent human being in the balance of life and death, as abortion “rights” do.

So why the dichotomy of terms, when science affirms that babies and fetuses are the same thing? Clearly, it is a form of sophistry utilized by the abortion camp, and the answer is wantedness (or lack thereof) in regards to pre-born children. Wanted offspring are “babies.” Unwanted offspring are “fetuses.” The latter term distances offspring from the warm, thriving, tiny humans with fingernails and beating hearts who they are. “Fetus” is a perfectly accurate term to describe an unborn baby, but it’s a term that has been relegated to textbooks, where medical nomenclature is predominantly Latin, and therefore unfamiliar to most laymen.

Most women seeking to “end their pregnancies” want to imagine themselves doing just that – ending a pregnancy – and leave it at that. Of course they don’t want to imagine what horrors, besides halting the growth of a belly, ending a pregnancy entails (the processes can be read about or viewed in all of their inglorious reality here). And, being the masterful marketers that they are, abortion providers will make the abortion sale by further and further distancing a mother – mentally – from the child she carries. The “uterine contents” will be emptied. Her “fetus” will be removed. The “procedure” will be quick.

Chelsea, who has staunchly advocated for abortion rights, will be giving birth to a beautiful baby very soon. This is great news. Perhaps when she looks into her child’s eyes for the first time, and he or she looks back at her in all of his or her humanity, she will be convicted to acknowledge the equal value of all fetuses in the future, whether they are wanted or so-called “unwanted” children.