VIDEO: Brit Hume’s super opinion piece on abortion

Last night I heard Brit Hume’s opinion piece on FNC.  I am glad there is a video.

Do have a watch.  It is worth it.

Technorati Tags: ,

FacebookEmailPinterestGoogle GmailShare/Bookmark

About Fr. John Zuhlsdorf

Fr. Z is the guy who runs this blog. o{]:¬)
This entry was posted in "How To..." - Practical Notes, Brick by Brick, Emanations from Penumbras, The Drill and tagged , . Bookmark the permalink.

20 Responses to VIDEO: Brit Hume’s super opinion piece on abortion

  1. incredulous says:

    I believe these leftist women such as Pelosi, Wasserman Schultz, Feinstein, Boxer, et. al, receive a deep joy knowing the pain they inflict on such helpless and innocent life. But, it’s broader than that. I believe they relish the power they are able to exert over the babies they kill and the men they control in the process.

  2. Facta Non Verba says:

    Well stated, but my guess is that Brit Hume is preaching to the choir on Fox News. It would be nice if one of the non-cable networks (ABC, CBS, NBC) had the courage to put on the air this point of view of someone with the gravitas of Mr. Hume.

  3. OrthodoxChick says:

    Facta,

    We’ll all turn blue waiting for that happen.

  4. trad catholic mom says:

    Forwarded it to my husband, as we didn’t watch the news last night.

  5. acricketchirps says:

    Gotta agree with incredulous. Knowing they’re causing pain isn’t gonna stop these people, any more than having an inkling that Jews bleed when pricked would have stopped the gentle staff at Birkenau.

    Yeah, I’m goin’ Godwin on y’all.

  6. SKAY says:

    Would any other network have allowed him to say any of this?
    Thank you for posting this video, Father Z. I missed his comments.

  7. The Masked Chicken says:

    You know, if you look at a map of the (incorrectly) labeled red states and blue states, such as, here:

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Red_states_and_blue_states

    one comes to the odd conclusion that the combination of water from ocean contact and cliffs from volcanoes and fault lines must push some states over the edge to become Democrats. Why should the edges of the country get to decide the fate of babies?

    The Chicken

  8. OrthodoxChick says:

    Chicken,

    Maybe it’s the change in barometric pressure from blizzards and hurricanes? Something’s very wrong out here!

  9. ReginaMarie says:

    I appreciate Mr. Hume’s stance against abortion…but I think it is a mistake to use fetal pain to determine whether abortion is acceptable or not. If in the future “improved” procedures render abortion painless (or at least less painful) for the child in the womb…this does nothing to change the fact that abortion is wrong because it is the direct killing of a human being. “Improving” the ease & efficiency of killing does nothing to lessen the reality & the tragedy of the loss of human life (not to mention the spiritual, emotion & physical damage done to the mother…& to the abortionist). May God have mercy on us for allowing the killing of His children to continue.

  10. Dr. Edward Peters says:

    Hume’s piece was stunning. Simply stunning.

    As for the strange comment that he’s “only” preaching to the choir, that’s ridiculous. Some folks might not watch FOX on the TV, but they sure click on it by themselves.

    Also, Hume is not resting his anti-abortion argument on fetal pain, he is simply stating that if science proves fetal pain, political support for abortion will collapse nigh on overnight. I think he is absolutely right.

  11. eulogos says:

    I came to say that pain is not the issue, as ReginaMarie said. Politically, this may help us stop abortion after X number of weeks, but it will never get us back to conception. I’ll take whatever we can get, of course. But I don’t like making the wrong argument.
    Susan Peterson

  12. AVL says:

    Thank for posting this, it is heartening to see someone in the mainstream media being so straightforward about what abortion really is.

  13. Unwilling says:

    Dr Peters correctly replies to previous comments.

    But I think Hume and he are mistaken to anticipate that
    confirmation of pain will turn the tide against abortion.

    As Hume himself pointed out, the _science_ of embryology
    has produced demonstration after demonstration that
    there is no essential difference between the unborn and us.

    Those who want abortion to continue find such evidence
    as merely more grist for the mill of their alethephobia.
    Would our alethephilia allow and evidence to tempt
    us away from a love and respect for the unborn?

    Although I think he put it badly, I agree with Francis that: “we have done little to adequately accompany women in very difficult situations, where abortion appears as a quick solution to their profound anguish, especially when the life developing within them is the result of rape or a situation of extreme poverty. Who can remain unmoved before such painful situations?” And that related to his earlier comment: “it means working to eliminate the structural causes of poverty and to promote the integral development of the poor, as well as small daily acts of solidarity in meeting the real needs which we encounter”.

    I do not think Francis understands that poverty is more spiritual than material. Eliminating material poverty would not protect the unborn. The poverty that results in pregnancies at risk of abortion is a poverty that undermines dignity, self-respect, consciousness of calling, generosity and hope.

    It may seem bizarre to anyone not used to GKC to urge a paradox that the elimination of poverty through undermining the structures of its genesis is more likely to be achieved where (among other like things) there is ready access to solemn Mass offered in Latin.

    A woman (sitting numbly in a Planned Parenthood waiting room, cannot hope for forgiveness for her unchastity, if she is deprived of the consciousness of her behaviour having been sinful, or even wrong.

  14. ReginaMarie says:

    Thanks for your input, Dr. Peters & Susan P. I agree that science (the ethical use of science, that is) is on the life, for it long ago established the basic fact that a genetically unique, living & growing human being exists at the moment of conception/fertilization. This is basic biology…yet the child remains largely unprotected by law when to comes to abortion.

  15. ReginaMarie says:

    Sorry for the typo…that should have read “science (the ethical use of science, that is) is on the side of life…”

  16. donato2 says:

    It is evident from what Mr. Hume said, and the way he said it, that he is a genuine pro-lifer. Genuine pro-lifers are rare in the mainstream media, including Fox News.

  17. Kathryn says:

    Forgive the block of text, but unfortunately, science has already spoken about fetal development and pain:

    “To experience pain, an intact system of pain transmission must be available. Peripheral receptors develop from the seventh gestational week.[22] From 20 weeks gestation, peripheral receptors are present on the whole body.[23 and 24] From 13 weeks gestation, the afferent system located in the substantia gelatinosa of the dorsal horn of the spinal cord is developing.[24 and 25] Development of afferent fibers connecting peripheral receptors with the dorsal horn starts at 8 weeks gestation.[25] Spinothalamic connections start to develop from 14 weeks and are complete at 20 weeks gestation, and thalamocortical connections are present from 17 weeks gestation and completely developed at 26–30 weeks gestation.[26] From 16 weeks gestation, pain transmission from a peripheral receptor to the cortex is possible and certainly completely developed from 26 weeks gestation. It is important to note that serotonin-releasing inhibitory descending pain fibers only develop after birth. It is therefore safe to assume that the fetus feels more pain then the small infant.”

    This is from “Fetal pain perception and pain management”, published in 2006 in Seminars in Fetal and Neonatal Medicine. There are, in fact, a great number of papers dedicated to the understanding of fetal/neonatal pain perception, and many of the larger review papers unambiguously assert that a fetus, from an age far earlier than is the general legal cutoff for abortion, is quite capable of feeling pain.

    And as indicated by earlier posters, fetal analgesics is an emerging field which may or may not slow the death march of legalized abortion. I can only hope that a wider understanding of these scientific truths will help “humanize” these little humans to those who would have them killed.

  18. bsjy says:

    Under the dictatorship of relativism, perhaps “pain” is the only way for promethean neopelagians to approach the Truth. Meanwhile, we should continue to pray for a greater understanding of whence cometh Truth. If we remain in Truth and extend our arms in Love, our brothers and sisters may respond to the Way and be able to choose Life.

  19. TopSully says:

    The numbers shock and sadden me. Always. No matter that I’ve heard them before. They are shocking. And that is just the U.S. numbers.

  20. Pingback: We Shall Overcome | Freedom, Justice and Liberty (CWNews)