Whether you are for abortion or not, your position on the matter is irrelevant. This is because neither side will achieve victory until one side dominates the other. The politics aside, what does that say about humanity? I mean in order to be pro abortion you have to believe that human life does not exist until a fetus is born. If that is true, what about preemies being taken by cesarean section at 22 weeks? Is that just worthless tissue with no more relevance than clipped toenails? While NOW and the liberal left would argue that it is nothing but worthless tissue, what about the former mothers who were outraged that the trash removed from their uterus was mixed with hospital waste and then incinerated? Do we instinctively know that we deceiving ourselves with regard to the destruction of these fetuses? And why do we not call them what they are: unborn children, why do we euphemistically call them fetuses? Further, why will we expend so much energy to save a death row inmate from execution when we butcher our children without a second thought? Is not an adult who earned his execution via his actions entitled to die for them? If not, how do you explain the merciless slaughter of the innocent?
So many questions and nobody is willing to answer them honestly. Those who are pro abortion will answer politically, evading the issues. Those who are pro life will hammer home the morals while some of the more radical ones will murder the abortionists in direct conflict with their stated premise that life is sacred. While feelings are strong on both sides of the issue, we are certainly in an ethical dichotomy. On the one hand, we say that all life is sacred, while on the other hand we slaughter the unborn to the tune of 4,000,000 abortions performed since the Roe v. Wade decision. That’s right, four million. Compared to the number of automobile accident fatalities since Roe, the number of abortions for the same period is roughly four times higher. Let me say that once more, the number of unborn children killed by abortion is nearly FOUR times HIGHER than the number of deaths due to automobile accidents during the same time frame. In fact, the COMBINED death tolls from automobile accidents and firearms are dwarfed by the numbers of abortions tracked over the same period by a factor of nearly two. To continue our analysis, if the number of death row inmates who were actually executed for their crimes and the number of automobile fatalities and the number of persons killed with a firearm were all combined, the number of abortions would still be much larger. Are you beginning to get the picture?
Among the four million children slain in the womb, what have we really lost? How many of the slain would have been surgeons? How many educators? How many would have been politicians? How many would have become great? How many would have advanced the state of human knowledge? How many would have had children who were these things, if they were permitted to live? You see, abortion not only slays an innocent life, it also robs humanity of potential and discovery. When we look at a child, society tells us that the child can be anything and that it naturally possesses the hope for man’s future. So what about the four million children who were denied a chance for life? What yardstick did we use to evaluate their potential? The truth is a simple one. The vast majority were slain because their mother’s believed that the child would be an inconvenience to her or a drain on her money. In short, mom was selfish. If mom had delayed substituting her interests over her child’s needs until after it was born, she would have been guilty of a crime. In truth, I half expected NARAL and NOW to say that mom should decide if a child should live or die until they reach the age of 18, in defense of Andrea Yates and women like her. How can you tell if you really want the child, until you have had a chance to get to know it? Give mom a few years with this thing and if she decides to keep it cool, if not, then it’s just tissue anyway and prime for a retroactive abortion. You may be offended by the callous regard for children just expressed, but this is the attitude that we take with the unborn. Some would say that the unborn do not know fear, that they cannot feel pain, that the wanton destruction of children in the womb is akin to blowing your nose, but they are wrong. Unborn children do feel pain and if an organism feels pain then that organism also knows fear. The two are inseparable. We feel more for an animal than our own young and we do so because we want to indulge our own needs and desires.
While it is true that some abortions are performed to save the life of the mother, or to remove a pregnancy as a result of incest or rape (the only instances in which I personally support an abortion), the vast majority of abortions are for selfish reasons at best and crackpot reasons at worst, such as the woman who had an abortion in order to reduce her carbon footprint. While I don’t think that mom is crazy enough to admit it, I believe that she got pregnant on purpose just to make her political point. Cold blooded? Yes. Planned for effect? Yes. Would a liberal really do that? Yes, I have no doubt. Rather than try to square this apparent conflict in positions, some try to expand the ability of mom to murder her young in utero because it’s her choice alone. In fact, the father has no input whatsoever, even if mom is his legal wife. Her body, her choice so dad can go to hell as far as the life of the baby is concerned. Which brings up another interesting question: if dad has no say so in the pregnancy, why does he have to pay child support? If the mother wanted to keep the child rather than abort, she would take him to court for child support regardless if he wanted the child or not. If dad wanted to take the child to prevent the abortion, even if he would release her from all parental obligations, she could abort and to hell with him. Mom is a Goddess where abortion is concerned. Equal treatment under the law my ass.
The trouble with mom being the Goddess of life and death for her child in utero is that complications can arise. Such as the selective slaughter of female fetuses in
Roe v. Wade has created far more problems than it solved. The first was the mental gymnastics necessary to follow the Roe decision. Second, it created a right where none existed before. Third, the judiciary now takes the heat that rightly belongs to the legislature. This is the problem with an activist court. People in black robes make the law that your legislators are either too cowardly or too impotent to pass, creating a new legislative authority that has no accountability to the voter. Worse, stare decisis firmly anchors such legislation for future cases. Stare decisis exists as the peoples guarantee that the law will remain relatively stable. Now we find that Roe is protected by those who are pro choice like a hungry dog protects his food dish. Had the judicial activists upheld the law, rather than create new legislation from the bench, there would be no problem and the ball would have remained in legislative hands where it belongs and there would be far less hand wringing when a Supreme Court Justice is being confirmed. Sure, we could repeal Roe, but that has implications as well. In the time that Roe v. Wade has been the law of the land, it has been upheld on several occasions, embedding it under stare decisis. Now, we have women of child bearing years who have never known a time when abortion was illegal and think that this is a God given right. How do we explain to them that activist judges gave them a non-existent right and that we are going to take it away from them?
Additionally, left leaning organizations are doing everything that they can to anchor abortion as necessary in the American consciousness. This is why they harp on embryonic stem cell research as the next great medical advancement. It really is a pity that they can’t get any traction on that issue. Similar to the “coat hanger” abortion myth of millions of dead women due to botching their own procedures, embryonic stem cells for medical usage is a bust. In fact, clinical trials of these cells have cured nothing and the side effects are permanent, even if the treatments have been stopped. Adult stem cells on the other hand, treat over sixty conditions and show great promise for treating additional conditions without permanent side effects. However, you can still hear the faint cries in the background going, “…but for embryonic stem cell research…man’s greatest hope…we are all doomed if we don’t research it…” ad infinitum, ad nauseum. These arguments only have one purpose, to protect abortions. You see, it is really hard to perform embryonic stem cell research without having copious abortions to supply the material.
So how do we fix this nightmare? It seems to me that we can apply some rural wisdom, if you find yourself stuck in a hole, the first thing that you should do is stop digging. We need to stop expanding this dubious “right” by giving mom more lethal weapons to use against her unborn child. The next thing that we need to do is to honestly talk about abortion. Notice that I said talk and not shout or use violence to make your point. If we can establish a dialogue with each other and honestly discuss the facts of what is going on with this issue, then perhaps we can decide who we want to be as a people. Do we really wish to continue on the present course or do we wish to reconsider our actions with regard to the lives of the unborn? At the present time, I am waiting for sanity to return to