CNN Contributor claims that an unborn baby is “not a human being”

Well, just when you thought public relations couldn’t get any worse for the mainstream news media, CNN decides to grab a shovel and keep digging. This time, there was a discussion of abortion law, and the CNN journalist decided to announce her opinion that unborn children in the womb are not actually human beings at all.

Watch this:

The Federalist reported on the story, and I’ll quote them here for those who can’t watch the video:

On CNN’s “Primetime with Chris Cuomo” on Monday night, a segment on the legality of state-level fetal heartbeat bills quickly spiraled into a chaotic debate about whether unborn children should be considered human beings. CNN contributor and erstwhile New York City Democratic politician Christine Quinn said, “When a woman is pregnant, that is not a human being inside of her.”

When guest Rick Santorum asked CNN Host Chris Cuomo if he disagreed “that at the moment of conception that a child is human and alive?” Cumono replied that means it’s “viable.” When Santorum asked, “Is it biologically a human life?” Quinn shouted, “No!”

Cuomo and Quinn teamed up in pushing back on Santorum as he articulated what science tells us about unborn humans. At every stage of human life — as an embryo, a fetus, or after five weeks of age when his or her heartbeat can be detected by an ultrasound — an unborn child has his or her own unique DNA.

He or she has a unique genetic code, blood type, sex, and race, all which can differ from his or her mother and father’s. This unique individual is developed inside a women’s body, but is not part of a women’s body, and cannot be regulated as the mother’s property, Santorum argued.

Um, scientists understand very well what the DNA signature of the human species looks like, and unborn babies do indeed have a human DNA signature. One that is unique to them, and not the same as either parent. It’s a new person.

I looked up her biography to see if she was just a guest speaker, but apparently she really is an actual CNN Contributor:

Christine Callaghan Quinn is an American politician. A member of the Democratic Party, she formerly served as the Speaker of the New York City Council. The third person to hold this office, she was the first female and first openly gay speaker. Quinn is a CNN political contributor.

Wow! So now CNN “journalists” are in open denial of scientific facts about embryology and human reproduction.

Here’s Chris Cuomo explaining that there simply is no case for the right to life of the unborn based on logic and evidence:

CNN says "The pro- life position is more about faith and feeling than fact"
CNN says “The pro- life position is more about faith and feeling than fact”

Really? Then how come I can find sophisticated defenses of the pro-life position from prestigious academic presses, like this one published by Cambridge University Press? How about this one from Routledge, a leading academic press? But we can’t expect CNN to be informed about such things, because CNN isn’t in the business of communicating truth to their audience.

CNN’s audience is vanishing

I wonder how that is working out for them in the new media ratings?

Oh, here’s an article from CNS News about that:

According to the latest television audience data from Nielsen, CNN’s prime time audience fell 26% in April 2019 compared to its audience in April 2018. Total audience in prime time for CNN last month was only 767,000 viewers, reported Forbes.

For comparison, MSNBC came in second place with 1.66 million viewers and the Fox News Channel (FNC) led the pack in prime time with 2.395 million viewers, said Forbes.

Wow, not working out too well. Well, they could always hire some conservatives if they want to get serious about reporting the news, instead of just doing campaign ads for the Democrat Party.

Something to share

My friend Nathan sent me this hilarious video of a Canadian pro-life advocate doing a parody of pro-abortion rhetoric. Except, it’s not really a parody if they really believe it, is it?

This might be worth sharing, to help your friends think clearly about right to life issues:

Indeed.

Look, there are academics who favor abortion rights over the right to life of the unborn. And we feature them on this blog, and we show academics debates on this blog that allow them to present their ideas. I know what the the best people on the other side have to say when they make their case. And that apparently makes me more honest and informed than CNN.

10 thoughts on “CNN Contributor claims that an unborn baby is “not a human being””

  1. I’ve heard pro-choice advocates dispute that an unborn child is a “person” but to deny that an unborn child is a “human being” must be a new low in pro-choice rhetoric!

    Like

    1. Yes, it’s unheard of. Maybe pro-choice scholars concede the full humanity of the unborn, then argue that the killing is justified for other reasons, like Judith Jarvis Thompson, David Boonin and Peter Singer. See, how come *I* know what academics on the other side think, but these two idiots on CNN think that all opposition to abortion is “faith” and “feelings”? I’ve been doing my homework to read the other side at a high level, and they’ve been ignorant, stupid and arrogant.

      Like

    2. David Boonin, in his book, A Defense of Abortion, makes this startling admission:

      In the top drawer of my desk, I keep [a picture of my son]. This picture was taken on September 7, 1993, 24 weeks before he was born. The sonogram image is murky, but it reveals clear enough a small head tilted back slightly, and an arm raised up and bent, with the hand pointing back toward the face and the thumb extended out toward the mouth. There is no doubt in my mind that this picture, too, shows [my son] at a very early stage in his physical development. And there is no question that the position I defend in this book entails that it would have been morally permissible to end his life at this point.4

      Peter Singer, contemporary philosopher and public abortion advocate, joins the chorus in his book, Practical Ethics. He writes:

      It is possible to give ‘human being’ a precise meaning. We can use it as equivalent to ‘member of the species Homo sapiens’. Whether a being is a member of a given species is something that can be determined scientifically, by an examination of the nature of the chromosomes in the cells of living organisms. In this sense there is no doubt that from the first moments of its existence an embryo conceived from human sperm and eggs is a human being.5

      Like

  2. Delusional! Even pro-choice people acknowlege it’s another life because none of their arguments directly address ethical justifications in terms of the fetus, only in terms of so called women’s rights and accusing pro life people of being misogynistic controlling religious fundies when the issue is a secular one, not just a religious one. I don’t need a higher being to tell me killing another life for your own convenience is disgusting…
    https://aladyofreason.wordpress.com/

    Like

  3. I wonder…

    Less then a hundred years ago, black people were thought of as less then human. History has since proven this notion wrong for most of western society.

    A hundred years from now, how will people look back on abortion?

    Like

    1. I think that’s very reasonable. Just look at the CNN people talk. They look like slave masters talking about slaves. And for what? So they can have irresponsible sex, and not be bothered by the consequences of their own selfish choices.

      Like

  4. I have less tolerance for those that argue it isn’t alive. I tend to just ask if you think a baby can be aborted because of a woman’s body rights. Then it is fair to abort a dog by leaving it locked on a hot car. It is my car after all.

    But the same ones that will want to kill a baby will be looking for a stone to break a window of a car if they the bk the owner is more than two feet away from their car. Anyone that can’t at least value an unborn baby to be a minimal value of equal life as an animal isn’t even talking with any sense of rational thought and it is all emotion

    Like

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s