JivinJ blogged last week on “possibly the worst pro-choice column I have ever read”. The column, titled “Wad of cells does not equate to human life, abortion isn’t murder”, was written by Shane Krouse, a Michigan State sophomore, and appeared in The State News, an MSU paper. Krouse writes:
If anything, a fetus is merely a parasitical creature that uses the mother as its host. Tapeworms are parasites that house themselves in the intestinal tracts of humans, feeding off the food the host consumes. Comparatively, a fetus is little more than a tapeworm. It is quite common for humans to annihilate parasites with medications or toxins, so why not allow for fetuses to suffer the same fate?
He also refers to a human fetus as “merely a wad of cells” (apparently the old standard phrase “clump of cells” is now considered passÃ©). He also waxes theological:
Fundamentalists fiercely oppose abortion because they believe it is murder. They often recognize those who are “slaughtered” by holding vigils and other ceremonies. Do any of these individuals realize that according to the National Institutes of Health, 25 percent of conceived embryos perish within the first six weeks due to complications such as failure to implant to the uterus wall? That’s right â€” a quarter of all “humans” conceived end up “dying.” It would appear that the “loving” God of these fundamentalists is many more times guilty of murder than all the human race’s abortionists combined.
And, for the finale, he revisits the Fetuses Are Parasites theme:
Life begins when the baby is passed through the birth canal and exits the womb. At this point, the baby is no longer physically connected to the mother and no longer freeloading its nutrients and oxygen from mommy.
In response to Krouse’s column, the State News recently printed the following letter:
Abortion column even offends pro-choicers I am neither pro-life nor religious, yet the column written by Shane Krouse, “Wad of cells does not equate to human life, abortion isn’t murder,” (SN 7/26), appalls me. Not only are his points offensive, they lack any type of reasoning or medical or political background. Though I am for women’s right to choose, I did not appreciate the terminology Krouse used in his column. Calling an unborn child “parasitic” and comparing it to a “tapeworm” is degrading and unfair. Congratulations, Krouse. You’ve even managed to offend pro-choicers. Most offensive to me is the fact that Krouse, a male, thinks he has the authority to write a column about abortion. Krouse, can you get pregnant? No. Men will never be able to put themselves in a woman’s position, and abortion cannot directly affect them. I would have so much more respect for a column about abortion if it had valid reasoning for aborting a fetus. The mother’s health? Financial and emotional state of the mother? Age of the mother? None of these are even mentioned as an afterthought. I certainly am not going to take a column written by a male seriously. Keep your laws off my body, and keep Krouse off The State News’ Opinion Page. Liz Herrington English senior
Oooh! Dissension in the “pro-choice” ranks! And along gender lines, no less. This is especially ironic, considering that women are more pro-life than men anyway. Truly, nothing destroys a movement quite like in-fighting. I’m at a loss to come up with a fitting adjective to describe Krouse’s column. The best one I can come up with is “clarifying” because he articulates the pro-abortion position in such a thoroughly unapologetic way. And, in so doing, he shows the senseless depravity that imbues said position. In the future, I hope to see more columns like Krouse’s. The more outrageous, caustic, and illogical the rhetoric, the better. At the end of the day, such ranting increasingly contributes to the realization that the pro-abortion ethos doesn’t play in Peoria.