Bill O'Reilly Needs No-Spin Truth: Child in the Womb is Fully Human!

By Jennifer Hartline
1/12/2011
Catholic Online (www.catholic.org)

The truth is not elusive or hard to comprehend, but it will require some courage to defend. I'm just looking out for you, Bill.

Sadly, Bill O'Reilly continues to perpetuate the falsehood that the child in the womb is only a "potential" human being. However unwittingly, he gives aid and comfort to those who profit from the extermination of babies. Every child in the womb is fully human from the moment of conception and must be protected by the law of our land.

Every child in the womb is fully human from the moment of conception.

Facebook Delicous MySpace

Twitter Stumble Digg

More Destinations

WASHINGTON, D.C. (Catholic Online) - The No-Spin Zone is once again in need of some actual truth. I tuned in on Friday night to hear Bill O'Reilly read a letter from a viewer in New York who asked him why he keeps referring to the fetus as a "potential human being." This viewer reminded Bill that as a Roman Catholic, he should know better! How absolutely correct. O'Reilly, however, responded this way:

"I'm absolutely factually correct when I say a fetus is a potential human being and no one can deny that. I respect your opinion but until you become a Supreme Court Justice, it remains your opinion, your belief. I can't run this program based upon my religious beliefs, so I try to put up arguments based on facts and I believe we are successful in doing that."

Bill, in that one small paragraph you have gone so very, very wrong in so many ways.

It is not "factually correct" to say that a fetus is a "potential human being." For starters, it isn't scientifically correct. The fetus is an unrepeatable, unique human child, created from the joining of a woman's egg and a man's sperm, possessing a brand new DNA never before seen in the world. Human beings can only make human beings. The fetus is never anything other than human. The child is never a plant or animal. This seems so obvious as to not need pointing out, but clearly, the obvious must be stated.

O'Reilly's reasoning is unfortunately, a favorite of the abortion peddlers - that the fetus is not fully human, but only potentially human and therefore, extinguishable without moral wrongdoing. It's not actually a person being killed, they say, but only tissue that at best vaguely resembles a human.

Those who perpetuate this false argument justify it by placing subjective value on the child based on the stage of development, health, and ability to survive outside the womb. But none of those things has anything to do with humanity. The humanity of the unborn child is inherent from the first moment of conception, simply because the new person is an unrepeatable human being, endowed by their Creator with the right to life. Humanity is not a function of utility! Humanity is not merely an expression of size, ability, quality of health or even intelligence.

Every child in the womb - whether in existence for one day or fifty days or 200 days - is fully human, not "potentially" human.

This is not an insignificant distinction. It's not semantics. It reveals the heart of two very different philosophies; one diametrically opposed to the other; one true and one false. Those who refuse to acknowledge the full humanity of the child in the womb will eventually deny the full humanity of any person whose life becomes too inconvenient, too expensive, too unproductive to justify within their limited and selfish definition. It is inevitable. Once a human being can be justifiably eliminated at one stage of life, he can be eliminated at any stage. Once the sanctity of life is put up for grabs, no one is safe. Sooner or later, we are all vulnerable. To declare the child in the womb only "potentially human" is a false, de-humanizing tenet that leaves no life at all sacred.

It's distressing that Bill continues to subscribe to the lie that this is merely a "religious" belief and not a knowable, undeniable truth. He fails to see that abortion is the ultimate human rights issue, not simply a personal opinion based on cozy theology. He tells his viewer that the only opinions that matter in the U.S. are those of the Supreme Court Justices, and anything else is relegated to "religious beliefs" that carry no weight and hold no value where laws are concerned.

In this he not only helps the cause of the abortion vendors but also those who insist that religious beliefs and principles have no place in the public square.

Bill asserts that he can't run his program based on his religious beliefs, but instead must present facts to support his arguments. Well Bill, the good news is that you never need to check your faith at the door in order to do your show and present the facts, especially when it comes to abortion. And since you brought it up, what are those religious beliefs?

Since you are Catholic, I assume you accept Church teaching regarding the sanctity of all human life from conception to natural death. I assume you accept the fact that every abortion kills a human being and is therefore always morally wrong. I also assume that you understand your obligation to God's revealed truth and the duty each of us has to live our faith authentically out in the world (even on television).

This means that each of us who wear ...

1 | 2 Next Page

Rate This Article

Was this helpful to you? Very Helpful Somewhat Helpful Not Helpful at All

Would you be interested in more articles like this? Yes, I am Interested No, I am not Interested

Rate Article

1 - 10 of 49 Comments

Mike FP
2 years ago
This is not impressive. You all seem to be clingiing to some notion that abortion is bad because it kills "unique" things. No explanation is made for why this is bad other than that we believe it to be so. I share this belief. But this kind of argument will get you no further than the choir. Consider, are you all vegetarians here? If not, you're either committing "murder by diet" or have come up with some way of distinguishing creatures it is okay to kill, and those it is not okay to kill. What differentiates the two? Simply saying that one is human and one may get the job done in terms of diet, but it doesn't in terms of the abortion argument outside the choir. But no one here seems to be willing to offer a definition of human other than the previously cited "uniqueness" argument. One would think those as concerned about this matter as some here claim to be might consider demonstrating a bit more intellectual rigor.
Helen
2 years ago
All we can do is pray that this man will have his blindness taken away by the mercy of Jesus. Only Heavenly intervention will accomplish this. As true believers in ALL of the teachings of Jesus Christ we know that our prayers will be heard, so let us join together and offer daily prayer for Bills conversion to the truth so he will stop misleading those who believe in what he is saying.
Jerriel
2 years ago
Someone has to correct O'Reilly and tell him the pure facts here, before another child is lost again because of this wrong idea.

What is a Human Being? The best scientific accurate way to separate a human being from other species is through DNA. Many animals which have similar features are now discovered as a different species with the support of DNA. Human Being (Scientific: Homo sapien) is a classification of a specie not a state or a stage or a period of development.

A baby in the womb is a Human Being. Why?
If we get two samples from a mother and a child in the womb the DNA result would say that the samples came from two separate human beings, it would not say as that the two samples came from one person on separate tissues and absolutely not say that the samples came from one a human and the other from an unknown specie.

O'Reilly is wrong.
O'Reilly's idea of Human Being is making it like a state or a stage or a period of development. He is changing the dictionary. He makes human being like the word teenager or a profession. He says a baby as a potential human being like saying that the baby will potentially become a teenager. Or like saying the baby will potentially become a doctor or a teacher, etc. There is no such thing as "potential human being".

You out there, protect a human life. The community should press charges on him.
joe lowrey
2 years ago
anybody who knows even a little biology or even only a little philosophy would also know that you are right and that oreilly is wrong but that is not the issue. people who perform or who procure abortions know that they a killing an innocent human being but they prefer not to admit it; they lie about it just as cain the first murderer lied.
their real issue is "equality" ie in their ideal world women must not be burdened any more than are men in this real world by the physical consequences of sexual intercourse that results ln an unwanted conception. these women & their drs don't like human nature as they find it and by slaughtering the innocent on the altars of the devil baal they purchase "equality". it is that simple & that wicked.
Mary E
2 years ago
Great response to the word "potential". Aren't we all potentially something else? Yet, we are what we are. Perhaps if Catholic adults would become the fearless advocates of the unborn children that we potentially could be, we would not be having this discussion. Bill O'reilly has the "potential" to be human too, if only he would step up and recognize the truth.
N'icole L
2 years ago
Sometimes Bill O'reilly says things that just not make sense. He let his mouth moves and credits himself with I told you so. He is not a bad man he is just very opinionated. I am sure if he reads all the comments he will correct himself he knows when he makes a boo boo.
JeanCatherine
2 years ago
Beth

Amen!

Let us all make sure we do in our own way a small thing to support life. Do whatever you can that is possible.

Go to the March for Life in Washington if you can. If father needs someone and you can go to the Planned Parenthoods with them and stand on a sidewalk and pray a Rosary or just plain support them when you go by in a car.

If you blog get the word out. Go to sights like priests for life make a one time donation if you can.

Right your representatives if you can but do so peacefully and get your point acrossed you support life.

I dont know if anyone realized this but the best things today are circles---an Embyrio is an egg which looks circular, a doughnut is circular. Candy is circular. I know its sounds corney but think about it. A cup you drink precious water from is circular.

The circle of life is most precious.
Mike FP
2 years ago
I think this discussion illustrates why the Pro-Life Movement has proven itself so relatively ineffective in discouraging what I, at least, consider a truly savage practice. I am not in favor of abortion -- period -- at any time after the moment of conception. But that is because of what I don't know. And what I don't know is when abortion might stop being similar to removing a tumor and instead involves killing another human being. That being the case, I think it is prudent to err on the side of safety. Interestingly, this is the same kind of thinking that causes the government to create all sorts of safety regulations to prevent things that might happen. In this sense, I think Mr. O'Reilly is merely demonstrating mental rigor.
The problem here is that you folks are trying to argue your point with folks who don't share your core assumptions. This also seems to blind you all to the weakness of some of your arguments. Yes, each human conceived in the womb is unique. So is every loaf of bread. So maybe arguing from uniqueness -- and many of the other "positive" arguments don't really fly. That doesn't mean I think abortion is acceptable. I think it is the great crime of our age. But I am suggesting that you all need better arguments if your going to persuade anyone but the choir. Or perhaps rational argument isn't the way to do it. The folks with the ultra-sound trucks outside abortion mills don't depend on reason at all. And I would suggest they have prevented a much larger number of abortions than these fairly weak argument have.
Beth
2 years ago
A "potential" human? How ridiculous. It's indefensible from both a scientific and moral standpoint. Father Richard John Neuhaus once wrote about how silly it was for people to argue that an unborn child isn't really human simply b/c he/she doesn't "look human" at the earliest stages of development - it's silly b/c that's exactly what a HUMAN BEING LOOKS LIKE when he/she is just beginning to grow. The fact that we all begin as zygotes/embryos/fetuses ought to be enough to give us the compassion and courage to end the scourge of abortion.
cris
2 years ago
Bill O'Reilly and Sean Hannity. Two Catholic media men who disappoint me.

Prev12 3 4 5 Next

Comments submitted must be civil, remain on-topic and not violate any laws including copyright. We reserve the right to delete any comments which are abusive, inappropriate or not constructive to the discussion.

Though we invite robust discussion, we reserve the right to not publish any comment which denigrates the human person, undermines marriage and the family, or advocates for positions which openly oppose the teaching of the Catholic Church.

This is a supervised forum and the Editors of Catholic Online retain the right to direct it.

We also reserve the right to block any commenter for repeated violations. Your email address is required to post, but it will not be published on the site.

We ask that you NOT post your comment more than once. Catholic Online is growing and our ability to review all comments sometimes results in a delay in their publication.

Name *

Email *

Comment *

Send me important information from Catholic Online and it's partners. See Sample

Post Comment