In-Utero Baptisms Prove Controversial

Dan Zembrosky

Editor in Chief

In an effort to bolster the claim that human life begins at conception and that all fetuses have souls, religious leaders have encouraged followers nationwide to baptize children as early as the first trimester of pregnancy or “as soon as they have a forehead.”

The ritual for in-utero baptisms requires that the child be anointed with oil. As such, a small length of wire with a swab of sacred oil must be fed through the mother’s vagina, into the uterus, and then carefully rubbed against the child’s forehead. After this, a powerful jet of holy water is blasted into the mother’s womb while a priest or other clergy member recites the words of baptism.

Religious leaders such as evangelist Pat Robertson have charged their flocks with this task as a method of putting to rest the question of the fate of miscarriages, still-births and other prenatal causes of death as well as “showing those unholy abortionists we’re willing to go as deep as they are.”

While many followers have lauded the idea of prenatal baptisms, some have found undergoing the actual procedure unpleasant.

Expecting mother Candice Welsley expressed a certain level of discomfort with her child’s baptism, which took upwards of two and half hours and ended with “a pressurized blast of ice-cold holy water.”

Continued Welsley, “though I did feel rather cleansed of sin afterwards, and fresh as a spring morning.”

Welsley voiced continued frustration over the baptism after later discovering she was no longer pregnant.

Clergy members assure Welsley that her child now rests “in the womb of His blessed Kingdom.”

Controversy has erupted around this topic as the AMA recently issued a notice that in-utero baptisms are unsafe for the unborn child even if performed by a licensed physician. The Christian Right responded by insisting that they never had any intention of receiving baptisms by licensed physicians anyway.

“That’s just silly,” explained Methodist Priest Albert Valcemmi. “You wouldn’t come to a priest for a surgical procedure, why would you go to a doctor for a baptism?”

When Valcemmi’s familiarity with the female anatomy was brought into question he insisted that “all priests have a working knowledge of that region.” Adding, “This is just the first time I’ve ever really poked around down there.”

Beyond the conflict between the Church and the American Medical Association, controversy has arisen after the secret baptism of a comatose woman’s unborn child. The midnight baptism was allegedly performed by one Father Victor Roussecous and several other accomplices.

Witnesses report seeing several men dressed in all black sneaking into her room late at night.

“They were as silent as mimes and twice as graceful,” noted ICU patient Theodore DuPont. “I could tell by their clothing they were either priests or ninjas,” continued DuPont, “But I’ve never seen ninjas fire a stream of water up a woman’s love muffin while repeatedly crossing themselves before.”

The debate as to whether the father of the unborn child had the right to request the baptism pivots between those who embrace federal law versus the “laws of God.”

“If we turn our backs on the laws of God, we turn our backs on reason,” commented Pope Benedict XVI on the situation, just prior to plunging himself arm deep into the womb of his great-grandniece in order to baptize his unborn relative.

Several bills are pending congressional approval to help regulate the practice of in-utero baptisms for the safety of the mothers and their children. However, many fear any law that regulates when or if a woman can have a prenatal baptism would conflict with her first amendment rights to freedom of religion.

“Don’t allow the government into your womb,” demanded a clearly upset Pat Robertson during a recent afternoon broadcast. “It is your body and your child. Send those godless politicians in Washington a message and let them know the only higher power you want in your womb is the Lord.”