Articles Melissa Harris-Perry

Published on March 26th, 2013 | by Gary DeMar


Professor Melissa Harris-Perry calls pre-born baby “This Thing”

Melissa Harris-PerryMelissa Harris-Perry described a pre-born baby as “this thing” that costs money when born, implying that it’s better to kill him or her rather than give birth. Here’s what she said on her MSNBC morning show:

“But the reality is that if this [as she holds up a marble-sized object representing the fertilized egg] turns into a person, right, there are economic consequences, right? The cost to raise a child, $10,000 a year up to $20,000 a year. When you’re talking about what it actually costs to have this thing turn into a human, why not allow women to make the best choices that we can with as many resources and options instead of trying to come in and regulate this process?”

So because a child costs from $10,000 to $20,000 per year, women should have the right to kill their pre-born children. Why not extend that right to children already born. Some children might be “worth” keeping around. Maybe we should wait to a baby is born, give him a few years, and if she doesn’t measure up, take her to a State-sponsored and licensed extermination center.

Melissa Harris-Perry says that she understands how religious people argue that personhood begins at conception, that it’s “a particular kind of faith claim,” but such a claim “is not associated with science.” So what is it about science that says a 5 or 7 year-old child is a person?

Science is not in the value judgment business. Scientists can measure brain waves, but they can’t say there’s a mind or if there is a mind whether it has any significance in a matter-only universe. Science can determine if a human meat bag is dead or alive, but it can’t say whether that meat bag’s life was worthwhile.

Evolutionist Stephen J. Gould (1941–2002) described religion and science as “Nonoverlapping Magisteria”:

“The net of science covers the empirical universe: what is it made of (fact) and why does it work this way (theory). The net of religion extends over questions of moral meaning and value. These two magisteria do not overlap, nor do they encompass all inquiry (consider, for starters, the magisterium of art and the meaning of beauty). To cite the arch cliches, we get the age of rocks, and religion retains the rock of ages; we study how the heavens go, and they determine how to go to heaven.”

But evolutionists don’t believe in the reality of religion or the moral universe that is derived from God. Gould and other atheists borrow their morality from a worldview that they work day and night to prove false and irrelevant.

Science can’t say whether what Adolf Hitler did was moral or immoral; it can only count the bodies and determine how they expired.

Melissa Harris-Perry finds it easy to argue for the pro-abortion position when she starts with a fertilized egg and moves toward birth since what can be seen is so small. Yet everything a human being is can be found in the union of sperm and egg.

By the way, Melissa Harris-Perry couldn’t argue the same way if she were holding some bird eggs. “The Migratory Bird Treaty Act (MBTA) prohibits the taking, killing, possession, transportation, and importation of migratory birds, their eggs, parts, and nests except as authorized under a valid permit (50 CFR 21.11).”

But what if the abortion argument started with a newly born baby and moved backward second-by-second to the point of conception?

Here’s a line of reasoning that I use with people who have not thought through the abortion issue but who would say that it’s up to the mother to make the decision.

I draw a horizontal line on a piece of paper capped on both ends with short vertical lines that represent the beginning and end of a nine-month pregnancy. I then ask: “At what point on this nine-month horizontal timeline would you say that it would be wrong to kill this pre-born baby?”

They are initially reluctant, so I facilitate the process. “Would it be OK to kill the baby as soon as he or she is born?” (I draw an oval, representing the just-born baby, at the right-end of the vertical line.) No one says yes.

“How about when the baby is half in and half out of the birth canal?” (I draw an oval so half the oval is bisected by the end portion of the vertical line.) Again, I get a “no.” “Would it be OK to kill a pre-born baby when the crown of the baby’s head begins to show? “No” is still the most universal answer.

It’s at this point that I offer the pencil to anyone to mark on the line where it would be morally justifiable to kill the pre-born baby. Most are non-committal because they begin to see the logic of what I’m doing.

So I pick a point around three months, the end of the first trimester. I make a vertical mark on the line. To the left of the line, abortion is morally justifiable. To the right of the line, abortion is not morally justifiable. Some will agree with this.

I then ask what has changed from one second before the three month period when abortion is legal and one second after when abortion would be illegal and morally unjustifiable.

Melissa Harris-Perry, who is black, has her own personhood problem. There was a time when it was thought that “the average intellect of the negro race . . . was exactly intermediate between the superior order of beasts such as elephant, dog, and orangutan, and Europeans or white men.”(1)

There’s nothing in science that says that it’s immoral to view blacks or whites as morally insignificant. They just are. “If we are all biological accidents, why shouldn’t the white accidents own and sell the black accidents?”(2)

Without God to impute value, there is no value. What’s true for Melissa Harris-Perry’s fertilized egg is also true of Melissa Harris-Perry herself.Endnotes:

  1. Richard H. Colfax, Evidence Against the Views of the Abolitionists, Consisting of Physical and Moral Proofs, of the Natural Inferiority of the Negroes (New York: James T. M. Bleakley, 1833), 23.()
  2. James Scott Bell, The Darwin Conspiracy (Gresham, OR: Vision House, 1995), 64.()
Print Friendly

About the Author

Gary is a graduate of Western Michigan University (1973) and earned his M.Div. at Reformed Theological Seminary in 1979. He is the author of countless essays, news articles, and more than 27 book titles, His most recent book is Exposing the Real Last Days Scoffers. Gary lives in Marietta, Georgia, with his wife, Carol. They have two married sons and four grandchildren, Gary and Carol are members of Midway Presbyterian Church (PCA).

14 Responses to Professor Melissa Harris-Perry calls pre-born baby “This Thing”

  1. harmongott says:

    Ah, “but the reality” of Melissa Harris-Perry is that her ‘thingafying’ of a fertilized, human egg is what evolutionary, naturalist belief does. It invokes science to turn humans into dispensable, biochemical objects. The view persists even after the “thing” goes on to experience birth, infancy, adolescence and adulthood. It’s embedded in a righteousness of the Sovereign Self that will destroy any “thing” that disturbs one’s own thingness.

    Consequently, by believing that a fertilized egg is vexatious, costly tissue, the Professor has made common cause with the sociopaths and psychopaths who murder because it meets a highly, personal need. “The heart is deceitful above all things, and desperately wicked: who can know it? (Jeremiah 17:9).”

  2. Jonathan says:

    It is precisely these kind of comments that fuel the animosity behind this debate.

    I agree there shouldn’t even be a debate and I agree that life begins at conception, and I agree it is wrong to take a life at any time, including what most term “natural” (there is nothing natural about death), and the author of sin and death has been defeated and will pay for his crimes against man, nature, and God.

    But doesn’t Christ call us to love our enemies. Rather than wickedly wishing ill to this poor, lost, woman, we should pray that she repents and recognizes the wickedness WE ALL HAVE within us prior to receiving the saving grace of God. Did not Christ pray for mercy on those who committed the ultimate, evil act by crucifying the only sinless one in history?

    Witness to her, don’t lambaste her. Love her, don’t curse her.

  3. glen b smith says:

    Melissa Harris-Perry says that she understands how religious people argue that personhood begins at conception, that it’s “a particular kind of faith claim,” but such a claim “is not associated with science.”

    So what is it about science that says a new born child is a person of value or for the Supreme Court to grant some of the same rights of citizens to legally formed corporations? While politicians seem to make value decisions, science makes the declaimer that it is not about value judgments. Medical science determines at the end of the first trimester if “this thing” is alive or viable if one prefers.

    Here is the question about science that ought to be considered for all who favor prochoice: What has changed from one second before the three month period when the abortion of “this thing” is legal and two seconds latter when the abortion of “this thing” would be illegal and morally unjustifiable? Is science to be associated with such a decision? Clearly not and neither may science be associated with labeling an embryo or a fetus as a non person. To label an embryo a non person is also “a particular kind of faith claim.” It might be asked, “Why?”

    Personhood might be said to be a particular quality which has all it genetic origins and markers present at conception. “This thing” has already at conception been determined as a unique, particular genetic human. Questions for Professor Harris-Perry:
    (1) Is science associated with this genetic fact or is it too “a particular kind of faith claim?”
    (2) If “this thing” is killed has “this thing” been just some generic blank slate of cells void of genetic identity – who could have been any one of the 130 million human births each year who has been denied natural biological development to personhood – or has a particular person been denied life?

  4. Herlin says:

    she should have been aborted

  5. truthseeker says:

    Stephen J. Gould’s statement that “…we get the age of rocks, and religion retains the rock of ages; we study how the heavens go, and they determine how to go to heaven” is elitist to the core.

    Not only are these paired items not mutually exclusive, they can be held equally by both the realms of Science (“we”) and Religion (“they”).

  6. Linnie says:

    She’s evil. As far as I’m concerned, that (the woman) has no morals or compassion. An “it” like that would kill her own mother …. In this case she started out as an “it” and unfortunately for her, she’s STILL an “it”. No heart, just a mechanical “it”.

  7. Bien says:

    She is a sick liberal beeotch who needs to have her teeth fixed !

  8. She is confused about biology, economics, and certainly morality.

    She should check out Abortion is the #1 killer of Black Americans, more than heart disease, cancer, accidental deaths, diabetes, homicides, etc. COMBINED.

  9. Robert A. Ferriere says:

    We live in an amoral society today because we have thrown out Gods word and the morality and ethics that it teaches. What do you expect of people when they really don’t know the difference between right and wrong. Everyone does what THEY think is right in THEIR own mind. Sadly, I must admit that I fell in that catagory until I saw the LIGHT (Jesus Christ). In Christ there is NO condemnation because we walk in the light of TRUTH (God’s word). John 3:19 “And this is the condemnation, that light is come into the world, and men loved darkness rather than light, because their deeds were evil. :20 For every one that doeth evil hateth the light, neither cometh to the light, lest his deeds should be reproved. Our country needs the fire of REVIVAL lest we stand in judgement of our many sins and our neglect of God’s holy word.

  10. Lance says:

    It’s amazing, astounding, and absolutely absurd that a bird has more legal rights to life than a human fetus.

  11. Jan says:

    She apparently didn’t pay enough attention in science/biology classes. When a sperm fertilizes and egg it automatically knows the sex, eye color, hair color, size the person will be, its intellect, etc. It’s a good thing she feels the way she does, then she’ll never have a “thing” to screw up its life. She’ll answer to God eventually.

  12. GentleDove says:

    “…turn into a human…”? Such words truly show the evil thoughts and belief system of this woman’s heart. May God cause her to repent and “turn her into” a godly woman.

  13. OrlandoRican says:

    The professor should be glad her mother didn’t think the way she does.

  14. matthew says:

    wow, she’s depraved

Back to Top ↑