Thanks for the reminder we all need to be - honestly - nicer to those of us in the same camps.  “Eating our own” comes to mind when I overhear, or am the victim myself, of people who are overzealous and sometimes offensive in their pro-life, pro-homeschooling, pro-Catholic or whatever tactics.

In pro-life camps, I’ve heard it from some who are intrusive in their questioning about how many children a family has.  Not content with the number given, they then inquire ‘oh, that’s nice, out of how many pregnancies?’  Seriously, they were inquiring as to insist the couple remember all their pregnancies including the miscarriages as their children.

Now, I know these babies are - having endure 5 miscarriages myself - I know they are.  But no one has the right to insist a couple relive that exquisite pain unless they want to.

The same holds true when people with smaller families than they are expected to have to pass muster as a truly Catholic family (whatever that number may be) are meant to feel guilty for falling short.  Be it the parents of two children - BY GOD’S PERFECT PLAN - or the family with 8 who are told “well, that’s a good start”! 

ARRGGHH - we are often our own worst enemies!  As some say - Lord, save us from ourselves!

Mostly, if not fully agreed.  It was common understanding for most of human history, and recognized by the church, that life/personhood in the womb begins at quickening.  Therefore a woman who lost a child for whatever reason before that point would not have considered herself a ‘mother’ in that respect.  (Lest anyone misunderstand, though, the church has always defended life, and thus personhood, from its earliest stage; it just didn’t realize for a long time that life began at conception.)  Therefore, if the terms were good enough for the common man 500 years ago without fault, they should be fine today.

Another case is the “how many children do you have?” when you have suffered a miscarriage.  Do you confuse and alienate the conversationalist by including your lost child?  Even worse, should you butt into a friend’s response in the same situation, reminding her that she should count one more for the miscarriage that she had years ago?  Technically correct, perhaps, but more harmful than beneficial.

I pray occasionally for the soul of my miscarried child, and ask prayers from him/her as well in case he/she is able to intercede for me.  But I still mark “three” on government forms half-guiltily (even where current life/death status is not at issue) when I know the true answer is “four”.  I still hope that one day future generations will live in a society where one could include the miscarried without embarrassment or confusion, but that is not this society.  So for the sake of everyone’s peace, I write “three” and try to say another prayer for the one in heaven (hopefully).

Anyways, you’ve probably seen the 1-2 negative comments that have sprung up on Ms. Fulwiler’s blogs criticizing her “About the Author” segment for listing X kids and “one on the way.”  Classless, in my opinion, however true.  She obviously knows that the one on the way is a child of God so the comment does no good, but that’s just the way people grasp the situation during pregnancy.

The three rules for speaking: is it true, is it kind, is it helpful?  If it doesn’t pass all three, keep your mouth closed!

So, I take it you would not be in favor of trying to make the Annunciation into the new Christmas?

@Crazylikeknoxes:  I’m in favor of anything that allows me to eat more cake.  And I do actually know someone who has a family celebration on her children’s birthdays AND on their conception dates.  But those are kids who feel welcomed and cherished every day of their lives already, so, again, I believe it’s mostly about the cake.

Most of our conceptions occurred in darkness and should probably remain that way, the exceptions being announcement by an archangel and/or the opportunity to get cake.

The lady in the picture holding the baby looks alot like your picture to the right.

The one phrase I’m coming to like is “pre-born” vs. “unborn”. I think it is more accurate and sounds less like “undead”.

I think the miscarriage thing can get awkward. Having lost two siblings, one to SIDS and one a stillbirth, it’s hard to know how to answer how many siblings I have. I’ve noticed that at pro-life events, my parents have this sudden ability to answer the question with the total number of children, vs. just the living children. The rest of the time they don’t mention it.

Also, as far as “welcoming baby” goes, could we find something more trite to pick at? You can be joyfully pregnant and still “welcome” a new baby at a whole different level. The end of pregnancy is uncomfortable and delivery is awful. But then you get to hold your baby and see what it was all for. When my son was born, after nearly 1.5 days of labor, I felt like it was all “worth it” once I held him, and was in awe that we also got to take him home. He was very welcome.

Oh, I thought it kind of looked like Suzanne Temple, actually!  Just a stock photo.

Unfortunately, it is too often the extremists who become the poster children for any group.  Recently, I wrote the following article in response to a “pro-life” rampage.

Pro-Life, is it time for a change?
A friend on Facebook posted the link to a video in which a Planned Parenthood employee is counseling a pimp who works girls as young as 14 on how to skirt the system and get the girls services. The link erupted into a 40+ post debate between several people on each side of the pro-life and pro-choice issue. In reading the whole line, I have come to the conclusion that neither side is handling the situation right.  Stunning, I know. Our Catholic heritage tells us that pro-life is the way to go and that we should always stand for life; and I always do. If a person is pro-choice, I usually consider that to be a basic moral line that tells me whether or not I would agree with this person and that is how I vote too. I mean, after all, if a person thinks that aborting a 20 week old baby is OK, what does that say about their character or decision making ability? 
In the online debate I read, I saw the ugly side of some of the pro-life proponents. We encourage girls to keep their babies, but how are we then supporting the children who have been discarded as the result of the unwanted pregnancy? And, what are we doing to stop the problem?
I believe we should be putting a great deal of effort and money into education. We don’t just need abstinence training but real teaching in which we look at the amazing development of a baby while in-utero. We need to show kids week by week, even day by day what is happening in-utero with these tiny developing people, not just tell how to use a condom and what STD’s they can get to attempt to scare them into morality. If we want to stop the onslaught of the justification this country has made for mass scale murder, we need to address why it is so prevalent a problem.
If we look to other countries where the abortion rate is considerably lower than ours, we find countries that spend a great deal of time educating their youth on fetal development. Wouldn’t the pro-life movement be more successful if they spent at least some of that time, money and effort to encourage the development of a better education program that spends a great deal of time on fetal development? Instead, we march the picket line with disturbing pictures and try to scare people into making a different choice than the one offered inside the doors. We are blaming the result and not making an effort to fix the problem. Maybe in addition to pro-life, we should also become pro-education. 
Another common strand in countries with a lower abortion rate is that a greater majority of the people feel good about themselves. The students in school report that they feel good about themselves and in their ability to control their own future. We should find ways to support a program that works to teach what love is and where it can be found. Young men and young women must be trained that in a loving relationship, even a dating relationship, their job is to support and encourage the best in the person they are dating and offer them only your best. Dating is trying to find a good match, not just getting what you can out of a person before you move on. Character education should support the encouragement and support of each other, not just a feel good of self. Maybe every middle and high school should partner with a charity that has single moms as part of their clientele. Those moms might be encouraged to share their stories with the students in health classes as they in turn receive the support of the students and their families. 
I am pro-life.  I strongly believe that abortion is wrong and that the consequences of abortion are life lasting. I also strongly feel that we need to take on the problem of unwanted pregnancies, not just fight to make abortion illegal. I believe we are going about fixing this problem the wrong way. We need to figure out how to solve the problem of unwanted babies, not just blame the places that do what they do to help those that seek out their services.  If we are to put an end to the great number of abortions that take place in this country, I believe we need to address and find a solution to the problem of unwanted pregnancies.

crazylikeknoxes, I totally agree about conception being an “in the dark” thing.  I think I’d be slightly mortified if I was reminded every year about what event brought me into the world.  :-O

Then again, cake.

Simcha, you and I are on the same page on this one. In fact, I blogged about it last month talking about “pregnancy semantics” in respect to other things being said that involve pregnancy that people tend to get worked up about here in large part due to what FILIUSDEXTRIS referred to talking about people making comments about Jen Fulwiler’s bio on this site. It really irks me. No one told my mother in the 70’s, and 80’s when she had her four kids (a radically large amount at that time in the place we lived) that she was not “pro-life enough” because she referred to welcoming her child at birth… Having suffered a miscarriage, I also bristle at people who “remind” me of what I have had told to me was a “blessed” event. Thanks guys. Oh, and then there are the pro-lifers who tell me that by not finding out the sex of a baby before his or her birth I am “denigrating the personhood” of my unborn child (we did not find out the sex of our first after years of losses and infertility we were saving that excitement for birth). I guess I’m just a bad, inauthentic pro-lifer. My rosaries mean nothing, my spiritual bouquets are meaningless, all because of my refusal to adopt awkward euphenisms.

Oh and I so echo that woman looks like Suzanne Temple…but I can see where her expression and smile look like you too Simcha!

“Oh, and then there are the pro-lifers who tell me that by not finding out the sex of a baby before his or her birth I am “denigrating the personhood” of my unborn child…”

Wha…? I’ve never heard this before. I’ve never found out the sex of my children prior to birth (I have 3) and probably won’t with any future children. I love the surprise and the excitement of finding out the sex on delivery day.

I agree with you, Simcha. The time to correct language is when someone who is pro-choice is insisting that personhood begins at birth or some such, not when someone who KNOWS that personhood begins at conception talks about welcoming a child into the world. Because, technically, the womb was the baby’s world before, and now s/he has entered into a new one (albeit one that was just outside the old one). We have enough to do in the pro-life community; let’s not add “language police” to our list of responsibilities!

One of my annoyances is the tendency to call facilities which perform abortions “abortion mills” or “abortuaries”.  Yes, we can agree that something truly evil goes on in these places- yes, it is murder.  But I don’t think that our use of such language helps our cause any with folks on the pro-choice side.  It’s unnecessarily inflammatory and can prevent them from listening to anything we have to say before we even open our mouths.

“Oh, and then there are the pro-lifers who tell me that by not finding out the sex of a baby before his or her birth I am “denigrating the personhood” of my unborn child…”

JoAnna, the argument was made to me loudly outside of mass one Sunday when I was a huge eight months pregnancy that because I did not refer to my child as “my son” or “my daughter” I was lessening the gravity of the murder of aborted infants in addition to denigrating my child (my daughter who is almost five now)‘s personhood. Seriously, I was crying and afraid I was going to go into premature labor and the priest and an usher stepped in. I think it made it worse that not only was someone criticizing a pregnant woman’s pro-life creds, but at church after mass, in front of tons of people I know only from being at mass with them each week. An older woman comforted me afterward and told me she must not be very prolife either because she couldn’t find out the sexes of her children!

I see your point, but the awful fact if that the law as it stands and the general thrust of the pro-choice moment is that personhood is not conveyed until birth.  I hate it when people sound forced and criticize fellow travelers who use different language.  But I see their point.  The bad guys view it as a baby and a person only because it is WANTED and CHOSEN.  We need to come up with a way to get across the personhood of the unborn in a natural way.  The fact of the matter is that most prochoicers probably haven’t give much thought to the personhood of the unborn until they actually carry a child to term.  I have heard statistics that over half of women suffering with severe depression later in life have received an abortion.  I don’t know if that is true but it makes sense.  So if someone wants to use “forced” language that might make someone else think more, more power to them.

Kristen, that’s terrible. When I’m pregnant, I refer to my child as, well, my child, or the baby, or I’ll use “he or she”. I’m sorry you were attacked like that.

M M, I have to disagree with you. I refuse to refer to PP et al as “clinics” because that implies that they provide nothing but health care, and abortion is anything BUT health care. I do see your point about unnecessarily inflammatory language, so when speaking with pro-choicers I will often use the term “abortion facility” as sort of a middle ground. After all, it is a facility at which abortions are performed, so they can’t really argue that it’s inaccurate.

I especially appreciate this paragraph: “...sometimes the nicest people are less than thrilled when a child is conceived. A nice woman will generally feel guilty about feeling that way….How about letting her get used to the idea for a while?  That’s why God gave us nine months of pregnancy.”

That is exactly where I am right now. My current pregnancy was a complete surprise and while I immediately recognized and respected the new life I’m carrying - I wasn’t exactly “happy” or “joyful” about being pregnant again. While I know that when the baby arrives, I’ll be joyful, the first three months for me have been all about acceptance. And it’s hard to fake happy (which has been driving some members of my family crazy.)

So thank you for writing that paragraph for all to read. There IS a reason we have nine months to adjust to the idea and plan for baby’s arrival. I’m finally at a place (4th month) where I can look forward to Sept/Oct without so much apprehension and growing acceptance.

Yes, “abortion facility” is fine with me!  I don’t have a problem calling PP a “clinic” because, even though I obviously don’t consider abortion part of health care, they do offer some actual health care (pap smears, physicals, vaccinations).  I won’t refer to it as an “abortion clinic”, though.

“JoAnna, the argument was made to me loudly outside of mass one Sunday when I was a huge eight months pregnancy that because I did not refer to my child as “my son” or “my daughter” I was lessening the gravity of the murder of aborted infants in addition to denigrating my child (my daughter who is almost five now)‘s personhood.”

Holy cr**!  I’ve never heard such a thing before.  I might’ve started swinging rather than crying in your shoes.  Or given my usual mental state that late in pregnancy, swinging AND crying.  Good grief. 

I can’t even imagine what these prisses would make of me—nine, NO TWELVE children (can’t ever stop bringing up those miscarriages!) and the sex was always a surprise.  Personally, I really like having a little surprise to look forward to at the end of all that execrable pushing.

From the other side, there is one phrase I don’t care for: “mom-to-be.” Or whenever someone says to a woman who just gave birth, “Congratulations on becoming a mother!”  Frankly, I consider pregnant women mothers.  On Mother’s Day at church, when all mothers were asked to stand for a special prayer, I stood in all my third trimester glory.

Re: finding out the sex, which I have heard before (and I’m only on number 2!), I say something like “In today’s world there are so few real surprises left.  And this is a surprise given by God!”

And honestly, WHO on earth criticizes a pregnant woman about her pro-life status based on that!?!?!

I entirely agree, especially with your comments about not always being thrilled at the moment of conception. I can personally attest to that (and I consider myself a loving mom who loves babies and Jesus and all that.)

Regarding miscarriages - I know some will call me hard-hearted, but I am always irritated when I ask someone how many children they have (usually in a social setting like a party) and they tell me they have some number “in heaven.” Perhaps it was because I was raised by a very “clinical” mother who, even though she had one still born full term son, never really spoke about having had three children, only about the two (my brother and I) that lived. She used to say that miscarriages were common and that many women have them even before they know they are pregnant. I think modern women are just very oversensitive about listing this; somehow it strikes me as inappropriate.
Now, before you destroy me - I had one miscarriage and one of my children died at the age of four months. I understand loss, believe me. And I do struggle to say, when asked, the number of my children. Is it six or seven, to include my daughter? I never, however, consider mentioning my miscarriage.

I always meant to write an article saying just what you said, and lo, here it is on your blog!

It’s a good idea not to go beyond tradition until you’re sure you understand the tradition, and it’s traditional to speak of a baby “coming into the world” at birth. I think the mother’s womb is not exactly part of the world. To be miscarried or aborted is “not to see the light of day”—the child belongs to God and in some degree to his mother but not yet to the world as a whole.

PIMEEDITOR, I think a lot of it depends on social context. If I’m at a company event or some other casual function, I’ll simply say I have three children. If I’m at a pro-life or Catholic event, I’ll say I have three children, plus two in heaven (or two lost to miscarriage). It really depends on who I’m talking to; sometimes I’ll mention them, sometimes not.

I do mention them when I can because it’s important to me, especially after being told by pro-choicers that since my two miscarried children were never born, they weren’t people and I shouldn’t grieve over losing a bunch of defective tissue.

My first loss was a missed miscarriage diagnosed via ultrasound. I still have the ultrasound picture in a shadowbox frame in our home, among pictures of our other children at their baptisms. After my D&C, we had the baby’s remains transferred to a funeral home, and later had him/her buried in a Catholic cemetery. Our priest did a graveside service and said a memorial Mass for him/her.

Therefore, I do bristle when people brush off my miscarried children as though they’re not worthy of mentioning since they were never born. They may have never been born, but they did exist, and they will always exist in my heart. If I’ve miscarried without knowing it, those children exist too, and I will meet those children in heaven some day.

@Jennifer Holland.  You might not be aware of the hundreds, probably thousands of “pro-lifers” who volunteer at crisis pregnancy centers, adopt special-needs kids, or take pregnant women into their homes and help them care for their babies.  I’m surprised in this day & age that there is a perception that pro-lifers (such a broad term anyway) don’t do anything more than picket, yell angry slogans and wave ugly signs.  You’d also be surprised at the kind of education that these centers provide both about abstinence and fetal development.  I have never been in front of an abortion mill with other pro-lifers when someone didn’t have a concrete place that a girl choosing life for her baby could go at that very moment.  Often these are the same people who have taken girls and babies into their own homes.  I’ve also been impressed with the work that Feminists for Life has done in helping colleges to provide for moms of babies to continue their education while caring for their little ones.  You’ll also be pleased to know that the people who do these sorts of things usually do it on a completely volunteer basis.  I encourage you to research Birthright or Good Counsel homes for starters.  If this is something that you feel “we” should do, those are two good places to start to see if you can help out.

There are a great deal of lies floating around.
The first and foremost in this day and age is “sexual liberation”.

There is no such thing and the entire concept is a lie to promote immoral behaviour and sining.

A wh*re is still a wh*re, she is not “sexually liberated”.
A thief is still a thief, he is not “property liberated”.
A murderer is still a murderer. He is not “lifefully liberated”.
And a liar is still a liar, he is not “truthfully liberated”.

And I myself am anti-murder, simply because The Lord has forbidden murder.
I think “Pro-Life” is a ridiculous term, to be honest.

Be Anti-murder, if you are proud to keep the Covenant.

I’ve always been chagrined by pro-life signs in front of abortion sites that say, “Please Don’t Kill Your Baby!” Instead, they should say, “Please Don’t Let Them Kill Your Baby!”  It’s a matter of semantic psychology.  The former isolates and demeans the woman.  In her mind, a line has been drawn: the pro-lifers on one side and her and apparently the pro-choice people on the other. She then runs into the clinic seeking solace. On the otherhand, the latter slogan immediately sets up that the THEM is the abortionists who want to do a horrible thing to something special that belongs to her, and the US is pro-life people who care for and are in union with her. Seems that one word addition can go a long, long way.

1. I do not like the phrase “pre-born”.  I don’t know why, I can’t put my finger on it.  I don’t like “unborn”, either for the record, but it’s what I prefer to use.
2. I would never correct anyone for using the phrase “pre-born” or “abortuary” (though I agree that that particular phrase is inflammatory in a way that puts people off of listening to you before you even speak.  I prefer “abortion mill”, because to me, it brings to mind those horrible “puppy mills” and, well, if you’re the sort of person who feels outrage at that sort of treatment of dogs, maybe we can help you extend that feeling to humans) or even “clinic” for that matter.
3. I believe very strongly that people need to find their own voice on issues they feel passionately about.  If every pro-life advocate used the same phrases in the same way then we would only ever connect with one segment of the population.  But by having many diverse voices using diverse phrases, we can blanket a larger group of people.

Most contemporary euphemisms, being transparent attempts to manipulate, accomplish little apart from the temporary delusion of the gullible, and the less temporary irritation of the clear-eyed. Consider terms like “moron”, “idiot”, “retarded”...I don’t know about y’all, but I can never keep straight which one was introduced to help remove the stigma of which other one.
.
Not only is this a futile game in the long run, but treating people as if they were this manipulable and simple-minded is not a good strategy for winning hearts and minds in the end. Even children (or in many cases, especially children) see through this so easily.
.
Maybe it has something to do with growing up in the no-nonsense Mountain West, but I say call ‘em as you see ‘em. (If it were up to me, for instance, we’d change the name of the Department of Defense back to the Department of War, just for starters.) Leave the silly linguistic games to those fancy-pants Eastern elites.

And by the way:

When asked for your age, always add 9 months to your birthday.
Demand that your drivers license should state “date of conception” instead of date of birth

That will surely emphasize the real lenght of your existence and thereby your real age, witch is your birthdate plus 9 months.

@Blog Goliard: Agreed. “Linguistics” sucks, and so does lying.

So yeah; call ‘em as you see ‘em.
Simple as that.

Thanks Buddy.

“Moron”, “Idiot”, and I forget the third term were originally scientific terminology to distinguish levels of mental retardation determined by the first IQ tests.

As one of those women for whom pregnancy is elusive, if not impossible (we don’t really know yet), there are a lot of things that the pro-life community says that inadvertently offends. I have watched them praise and condemn women like my daughter’s birthmother in the same sentence, without even realizing it. I have learned, in my experience, that there are so many layers of complication in so many lives. Women with frequent miscarriages are afraid to acknowledge (out loud, anyway) conception until they are past the most likely danger zone of those early weeks and months. Women with infertility feel excluded from the discussion altogether, and occasionally feel condemned by those who shout the loudest about the blessings of a large family because they would love to be in that crowd, but the door is barred. When I hear someone quoting scripture about the blessings of the children of our youth or about a quiver being full, I want to scream. It is not meant to offend, but the subsequent homily or presentation (usually to a pro-life crowd) is usually heavy on the blessings of children without a word said about the adoption community or all those kids in foster care who need homes or all those overburdened families who could use a helping hand so they can continue to be open to life and wouldn’t it be great if we all try to do something concrete for THEM. I think we are a little heavy on the rhetoric and occasionally a little light on seeing the problems that WE can help fix right in our own little corner of the world.

@Lisa.

Adopt a few kids then. Personally I happen to have 4 children, of witch only one is human. The rest originally comes from the family Felis catus (cats).

But they`re my kids now. So get some kids that are allready “up and running”, so to speak.

That means already born. I don`t think anyone who adopts spend much time thinking about the biology involved.

G.

Oh, Gabriel.  You say “call ‘em like you see ‘em” and then you call your cats “children?”  Come on now.

@GABRIEL: I trust you mean well; but blithely issuing blunt advice to persons one doesn’t know is exactly what Lisa and others upthread have been trying to warn against.

We hurt people when we do this. It does not help. Even if we’re quite positive at that moment that there’s no possible way we could be wrong.

@ Lisa:

Better yet! Go to an abortion-clinic and carry a sign that says
“Don`t kill your kid, give it to me instead” and cut a deal right there and then.

@Simcha: I’ve known too many people for whom that *is* calling ‘em like they see ‘em.
.
These are the sorts of people who say they became doctors or nurses because it would have been too heart-breaking to lose patients in veterinary medicine. (I’ve known more than one or two such…but that’s a whole ‘nother subject.)

@ Simcha: Yes, that is the excactly the way I see them. :-)

@Blog Goliard: I am not even a 100% certain that my human daughter is blood-related to me, but that does not matter.

And seriously, if Lisa wants a kid, there are ways to get them.
Joseph was not a blood relative. But the kid grew up to be allright in my opinion.

@Gabriel:  So if your “four” children were drowning and you could only save one, would you have to think twice before choosing which one?

Actually, I don`t want to think about my kids drowning at all.
Not many parents would.

Language certainly DOES matter and does influence thought patterns and behaviors, positively and negatively. Research has proven it and everyday experiences demonstrate the power of words.  I have chafed at the implication that being pro-life somehow means you’re “anti-choice,” and therefore almost anti-American. Interesting that “freedom of choice” is defined as “Right to exercise one’s freedoms in any manner one may choose except where such act may obstruct or prevent others from exercising their freedoms, put oneself or others in danger, or exceeds a statutory limit.” And yet, the Freedom of Choice Act denies that right to the child, puts pregnant women in serious danger, and turns a blind eye to the lies, manipulation, and criminal acts taking place in abortion clinics. 

As for Catholic connections, I wish the Feast of the Annunciation would be designated an official Holy Day of Obligation and elevated in the minds of modern Christians. After all, doesn’t it commemorate the moment the Word was made Flesh and dwelt among us?  And NO, it doesn’t necessarily follow that we’d all have to begin celebrating our Conception Day rather than our birthday.  It just struck me this year that the Feast of the Annunciation is almost ignored, which is ironic given its relevance to the pro-life movement.

Cari - I don’t like “preborn” either, and I can offer two reasons to try to articulate why: (1) It’s concocted from an anglo-saxon root and a latinate prefix, which makes it just sound wrong.  Even if most hearers won’t be able to pinpoint the linguistic barbarism, it still has a subconscious effect - at best it sounds fake and made-up, at worst illiterate.  (2) Like Simcha says, resorting to fake neologisms makes our position seem weak.  It’s the other side that needs to do that.  If we have common sense and human tradition on our side, we shouldn’t need to impose a new, politicized language on everyone.  Leave that for the side that needs propaganda.  Our ancestors spoke of “unborn children,” fully aware they were children.  Why can’t we?

@Cari: “If we have common sense and human tradition on our side, we shouldn’t need to impose a new, politicized language on everyone.”
 
You nailed it there. As a rule, the more you feel the need to modify or twist the language, or to neologize, the more you’re mangling the truth.

(Oops…I mean @ARM.)

I think people who insist so vehemently on the sort of language that emphasizes conception unintentionally diminish the birth of a child. I definitely see their point and will go to bat for that point. A lot. But birth is a MAJOR EVENT. Just because we now have a window into the womb and all the scientific evidence of the humanity of the child before birth…does not transfer all of the significance historically (or emotionally, biologically, or other “-allys”) connected with birth to conception, or make birth insignificant. The Word of God sometimes says “a new creation,” and sometimes it says “BORN anew.”

Wait…conception is the beginning of human life; but that doesn’t mean we have to take anything away from the significance, and even the beginning-ness, of birth?
 
Nicole, you’re going to confuse Gary the Alligator with that kind of thinking. (But at least you didn’t try to fit baptism in there too…that would really cause him to grind his gears.)

One of the nicest phrases I know, which has the advantage of being both ancient and accurate, was when I went to a surgeon, and he didn’t realize I was pregnant until I mentioned it.  “Oh,” he said, “You are with child!”  How lovely to hear, especially from a doctor.  You are “with child” in a particular way when you are pregnant which is not the same as being with the same child who is born—and yet it’s a phrase of such warmth, and implies a real relationship.  I don’t hold out much hope of bringing that phrase back, but I sure liked hearing it!  (He was an excellent surgeon, too.)

I like that too, Simcha.
 
And it also has the benefit of being 93% less creepy than what a doctor of my past acquaintance liked to announce when a pregnant woman came into his office:
 
“There is nothing more voluptuous than a gravid woman!”
 
(I think I’ve shared that one with you before.)

Even though I’m a physician and it’s not ‘medical’ terminology, when talking to my colleagues, I refer to the intrauterine child as a ‘baby’, not a fetus or embryo.  I only use the terms fetus/embryo if I need to specifically comment on the gestational age.  There’s nothing wrong with either word, of course, but saying baby has a way of making it harder to detach yourself from the reality of what’s growing inside.

When my oldest was 5 and I was 6 months pregnant, we went to a playground and he struck up a little conversation with another boy there.  The chatty boy asked him, “Do you have any brothers?  How old are they?”  My son answered immediately, “Well, I have one, but he’s not born yet.”  I was proud.

Fascinating article and comments (wish I could read through all of them). I don’t live in the USA at present, and the pro-life movement is hardly visible where I am (in Belgium). However, I’ve found that there really are ways to being a witness to pro-life while being true to the situation. A response to a woman who is concerned that it’s not really a good time to be pregnant should be completely different from the reaction to news that a friend who has been wanting a baby for a long time announces a pregnancy. The story about being chastised for not referring to a ‘son’ or ‘daughter’ in the womb is horrifying. I’m so sorry that you had to go through that. Hardly an example of joy in the presence of a pregnant woman.

Today we have no proper appreciation for mystery.  The child in the womb is “in the world” in one sense, but he is mysteriously hidden away in another sense. I think there is something profound about this, something we lose with all the photos and models of children at a stage of development in which man was never meant to see them.

Consider for a moment the life of Christ.  He was conceived at the Annunciation and spent 9 months in the womb of Mary before finally being revealed to the world—specifically, to the shepherds—at Bethlehem.  (Even the birth itself was mysterious—Eastern icons of the Nativity make reference to the legend that the midwife was struck blind for her unseemly curiosity.)  In between, we have just a glimpse of His life in the womb, when Mary visited Elizabeth.

I’m not quite sure what to make of it, but this parallels His hidden childhood.  He is revealed at His birth and its immediate consequences, but then He disappears from view until, as a Man of about 30, He is baptized by John the Baptist.  In between, we have just a glimpse of His life with Mary and Joseph, when He was left at the Temple when He was 12.

I skimmed and didn’t see this, but if I missed it, I’m sorry if I’m repeating someone else’s thought.  I love the Spanish idiom for birth - dar la luz - ‘to give light’. 

You may have been a mother all that time, but there is something to be said when your child sees the light of day, and you see the child. 

Don’t know if that adds to the conversation, but I thought I would throw it out there.

Honest words probably make the best case.  Political correctness is so mockable and irritating because it is trying to force you to admit that your previous phrasing was indicative of incorrect thinking.  And no one likes to hear that especially when your thoughts on the subject haven’t been wondrously changed upon hearing the new, correct term.

Celebrating a birth doesn’t deny the personhood of the baby beforehand.  The birth is when the world is able to experience the new life, and should be celebrated.  But the conception and pregnancy belong almost exclusively to the mother.  And if there is a need, she is always the one to whom the case for humanity must be made.

I remember one uber-fertile couple from my parish who had a baby every year, like clockwork. When another woman miscarried, they comforted her by telling her that she was ‘flooding heaven with souls’. This fit their philosophy behind having many children, and they repeated it often.

Let me over-theologize. :)
When my daughter was born 24 years ago, my first words to her were “Welcome to the world.” She had emerged into a new point of view, and my voice was familiar to her.
Jesus says the kingdom of God is within us, among us, present now. But we can look forward to hearing His familiar voice saying, “Welcome to my kingdom.”

This is probably the silliest and least-important discussion I have seen on the NCR.

@Jennifer Holland, please reference specific countries and education programs. I can’t think of another country that fits your descriptions of education as a way to fix the abortion massacre.
Plus, ‘Catholic heritage’ is inaccurate. Heritage is your ethnic cultural background; Catholic teaching would have been better. Verbage matters, doesn’t it?

MM: How about extermination camp? Not euphemistic, accurate too.

Using terms like “pre-born” and over emphasizing conception is a turn-off to both pro-life and pro-abortion people of certain sensibilities - mine.
I have read philosophical arguments asserting that human life begins at conception and I fully concur - but I find it uncomfortable to discuss the conception date and circumstances of any particular person, short of Christ or the Blessed Mother. 

I have had friends announce that they are two weeks or even just a few days pregnant, which I find to be the same as saying, “I just had sex!”  While I get it that they’re happy, and I want to be happy for them, it seems to be short of the proper decorum.  As [seemingly] one of the few catholics who doesn’t chart for NFP and has a vibrant physical relationship with her husband I frankly cannot tell you when any of my children were concieved, though I suspect one was in the back of a van.  Isn’t that a disturbing over-share of information?  Does that make me any more pro-life?  Is it more fully recognizing the humanity of my children?  To me, that almost seems to cheapen the whole business.

As for miscarriages, I recognize that we all need to deal with our emotions differently and I don’t want to hurt any feeling, but I would like to share my experience.  I miscarried four babies in the second trimester, two that I delievered and held in my arms and two that I had D & Es. My family and friends all know this.  I am not sure why I would ever need to tell anyone else, unless it were a very personal witness.  I don’t walk around saying I have nine children, four in heaven.  That sounds like there was a house fire or something.  I don’t think that gives additional dignity to the babies I lost - I think that sounds like I want some attention, or bragging rights for my ‘larger family.’

Further, the church has never officially pronounced on the fate of unborn babies.  It is entirely possible that through a baptism of desire those babies are enjoying the beatific vision - that is my hope!  But whatever the case is, it was God who created their souls and I am perfectly content knowing that He loves them more than I do and has a perfect plan for them, which may be the church’s traditional teaching on limbo.  I know a lot of my friends feel comforted asserting that their miscarried babies are in heaven, and I certainly don’t desire less for mine, but I just don’t know how we can say that with certitude.

Generations of women bore lots of babies and buried many of them, if they didn’t die themselves.  They loved their children and respected their humanity, I am sure.  I don’t think the traditional language of life and birth fails to accomodate our current understanding of life and it’s origins and dignity.

I appreciate that those one the forefront of the pro-life cause need to consider their words carefully, but no turn of phrase is going to trump the compelling truths found in the Gospel.  The problem isn’t whether we’re comfortable using the term “pre-born,” it’s whether we can accept the church’s teachings on marriage, sexuality, and the sacrifices required by the Christian life.

Finally, forcing someone to concede the humanity of a child from conception doesn’t address the notion that some people can chose to excercize their rights over others - plenty of pro-abortion advocates have argued that a woman has a right to terminate her baby whether it’s fully human or not. It’s not exactly a rational position.

Instead of re-wording what we call things on the pro-life side, how about we work on re-branding the other side? Let’s call an apple an apple. They aren’t pro-choice, they are pro-death. Death is the only “solution” they have to offer for suffering, for child abuse, for poverty, or for medical conditions. You can’t prevent child abuse by destroying children. You can’t eliminate poverty by exterminating the poor. You can’t cure disease by killing the person who has it.

@opinionated: Wow. An absolutely masterful comment. I think it deserves a blog post of its own.
 
(Okay, maybe I think that, in part, because you seem to be inside my own brain…but I don’t believe that’s the whole reason. Very very well done. Thank you.)

@blog goliard:  you should never feed a blog troll’s ego.  It makes them grow bigger.

@opinionated: True enough. But don’t you realize, an internet troll is fed not by praise, but by getting mad.

Actually, I can’t stand either “pro-choice” or “pro-life.” I think they both obscure the topic of conversation. When the subject was slavery, Abolitionists openly and directly acknowledged that they wanted to abolish the institution of slavery, and left slavery proponents to come up with roundabout arguments about states’ rights and economic necessity. They could do that because slavery was an abominable practice, and they were not afraid to openly denounce it.

Abortion is a similarly abominable practice, and I think the best way to tackle it is head-on. When I’m discussing abortion, I try not to let the debate get sidetracked into debate about “choice” or “life.” Everyone likes choice and life, in principle and in general. But choice in general or life in general is not the topic under discussion. The debate is not about whether to ban or allow choice or life; it is about whether to ban or allow abortion. Using only the terms “pro-abortion” and “anti-abortion” is the best way I know to keep the discussion on track.

When discussing abortion with “pro-choice” folks, I say call the debate what it is, and watch them squirm when they are faced with accepting the “pro-abortion” label. Gee guys, if abortion is a good thing, why do you have such a problem acknowledging your support for it?

Can I just say I am a little tired of “Culture of Death”? No offense to my dear JPII who coined the phrase, but it has become a tired cliche catch-all for anything not pro-life. If you use the phrase around secular or pro-choice people they will have no idea what you are talking about. How about saying we need a “culture of unselfishness” or “culture of self-control” when it come to Americans’ attitudes about bearing children.

@Jennifer etc., (4/7 11:39)
Although I think Matt makes a good point, I kind of like some of the things you mention about education. I will note that education is not somehow minimized in support of life issues (y’all can debate semantics there if you want), but one of the main pillars of the effort—along with prayer, advocacy, and direct aid. Plus some of your negativity toward these is simply inaccurate and ungracious.

What I like that you say is that as part of our education we need to better emphasize the beauty and wonder of the developing child. To celebrate life! And try to get this into the popular culture, not just the culture of the choir. That might be a pretty big challenge though—things like that tend to get squashed pretty quickly by the watchguards of the “other side” and its servant media. (Oops, symantics again.) Also, to give the pregnant woman/girl, married or unmarried, not just material aid, but to improve on the psychological support and acceptance, even and especially to the younger mothers. May the old era and parlance of “she went to visit her aunt” never even be known.

If you are ‘pro-life’, you should be pro sex-education. The girl in this story probably did not know she was being abused when she had a child at such a young age, let alone about getting prenatal care: http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=439x1426879

I know you don’t like learning what you don’t want to know.

@Adrienne: I’m all for sex education, but not the kind they give in public schools. There, they teach them that birth control and condoms will protect them from the negative consequences of sex outside of marriage.  They don’t warn them about the psychological consequences. They don’t warn them that the human brain is built for monogamy and each partner you take leaves you a little less capable of attaching to a future husband or wife than you were before. They don’t warn you that viewing pornography leads to objectifying the opposite sex, and that it makes it harder to treat the opposite sex with proper respect and dignity.  They don’t warn the kids that masturbation can hurt them when they want to marry later. They don’t warn kids about the fact that taking birth control pills exposes you to a class 1 carcinogenic (cancer causing agent - not making it up, this is something the government has stated) and can sterilize you permanently.  They give them the lecture on practicing “safe sex”, making them believe that their condoms and their birth control pills are some kind of impermeable armor that will protect them from harm while failing to warn them at all about the very real psychological damage that can be done.  No, I don’t find public education’s version of sex education meaningful or helpful. It’s more like an advertisement for the pill and the condom.

Public school sex education doesn’t tell things that are not the truth. Legally they are not to preach christian lies that are not validated by science, as it would be promoting a particular religion, which at least right now is still illegal.
I find christian “education” an oxymoron that advertises ignorance and obedience to authority. It produces people who are too lazy to think.

Adrienne: Haven’t you ever read the long list of Catholic scientists who were renowned in their field? Taking God out of education does not give the whole picture and so education that is godless has serious problems and errors with it. The schools should not be talking about sex period. This is the prerogative of the parents. The government has no right to interfere here. Plus it is not the truth. They tell kids that birth control is good and that they should use it. This is blatantly false.

Rejection of authority is not the sign of intelligence but of stupidity. We are supposed to spend our lives uses our intelligence. There are many educated catholics. Just because some are not does not mean the Church advocates ignorance.