The arguments surrounding abortion has always seemed bizarre to me. The way that it is framed – whether it is the birth mother’s right to choose whether or not she should give birth to her baby if she doesn’t want to; verses whether the baby in the womb should have it’s right to life once it is conceived, just as it would if it was a human being outside of the womb. Now pause for a tic and reread that last sentence. The true distinction as it is being presented, seemingly is whether the human being is in or outside of the womb of the mother when their life can be arbitrarily ended legally.
21 States in the Union have passed a “Heartbeat Bill” which makes abortions illegal as soon as the fetus’ heartbeat can be detected. In Georgia, for example, named the Living Infants Fairness and Equality (LIFE) Act, would reduce the ability to receive a legal abortion to as little as six weeks, down from 20 weeks. Advocates are screaming that these such laws are an assault on their signature 1973 Supreme Court victory, Roe v Wade, which the decision held that a woman, with her doctor, could choose abortion in earlier months of pregnancy without legal restriction. This case was said to be based primarily on the right to privacy of the mother. But if you look at the initial catalyst of Norma McCorvey’s, Jane Roe’s real name, argument in Texas was that it was unconstitutional because it was an invasion of her privacy. All that the Texas law said was that abortion was illegal unless it was “for the purpose of saving the life of the mother.” Seems reasonable and logical to me. Ironically today Norma herself no longer believes in abortion on demand.
Noodle this around. If someone was to shoot a child while in the mother’s womb or if someone were to cause a pregnant mother to lose the baby while in the womb they could be criminally charged with Infanticide. But, if the woman should choose that she wants to terminate the life of the baby while in her womb, it’s ok. Really? The debate surrounding the issue of abortion having to do with the “mother’s” right to choose base on convenience sake has been pushed to the side in today’s discussion. We are at the base of the discussion today talking about stopping the heart of an infant while it is inside the mother’s womb or even newly delivered outside of the womb. According to what the Democrat Governor of Virginia, Ralph Northam, said recently during a radio spot discussing an infanticide bill that was at the time moving through the State’s legislature – fortunately, it was defeated. He said while attempting to illustrate how the bill would allow women to abort their children even as their body is dilating and preparing to deliver, “If a mother is in labor, I can tell you exactly what would happen,” he said. “The infant would be delivered. The infant would be kept comfortable. The infant would be resuscitated if that’s what the mother and the family desired, and then a discussion would ensue between the physicians and the mother.” Did I mention that Governor Northam is a pediatric neurologist? Yeah, he deals with child mental and brain issues.
The political party that champions the killing of fetuses and human infants are the same ones who are staunchly against the death penalty when it comes to older human beings. This is the same party who holds extreme reverence for Margret Sanger who was quoted saying, “As an advocate of birth control, I wish to take advantage of the present opportunity to point out that the unbalance between the birth rate of the ‘unfit’ and the ‘fit,’ admittedly the greatest present menace to civilization, can never be rectified by the inauguration of a cradle competition between these two classes.” And “Apply a stern and rigid policy of sterilization and segregation to that grade of population whose progeny is tainted, or whose inheritance is such that objectionable traits may be transmitted to offspring.” And “… these two words [birth control] sum up our whole philosophy… It means the release and cultivation of the better elements in our society, and the gradual suppression, elimination and eventual extinction, of defective stocks — those human weeds which threaten the blooming of the finest flowers of American civilization.” It leaves one to question whether her parents had any children that lived? Sanger would go on to establish, wait on it, wait on it,…. Planned Parenthood.
The Democrats, along with their buds in the Media, have ingeniously crafted the abortion debate around the “mother’s” right to choose who governs her body – whether it’s her solely or the government. But, it is truly about the ability to terminate a life of the most vulnerable amongst us. The choice that the woman should be held to was whether or not to have intercourse – the act that initiated the life that she would later selfishly determine to be inconvenient and or unwanted. Of course, I nor no one is including the cases of rape nor instances when the life or health of the mother is at risk in giving labor. Roe v Wade was one of the most catastrophic rulings ever handed down by the activist Supreme Court. The first arguably was Engel v. Vitale – the case that removed the Bible from the government-run school system – where the voices of the people of the several states were silenced by unelected individuals at the federal level governed not by strict adherence to the principles of the Constitution, but their personal skewed political views.
Members of the Supreme Court were too willing to use not the actual Constitution for their basis in deciding Engel v Vitale, but an obscure letter writing by Jefferson to the Danbury Baptist Association to separate Christiandom from all matters involving government and the people. But it was apparently uninterested in the sentiments of Founders like, James Wilson, a Founder who signed both the Declaration and the Constitution, that said, “the infant is first able to stir. That is, when movement can be felt inside and, thus, they knew for sure that there was indeed life within.”
This matter is not a simple nor easy one. Clearly, it is a deeply personal and emotional issue. But it is one that I believe should include the rights of the unborn, more onus should be placed on individuals to be more responsible in their behavior and life choices, and to not allow players or entities who have a significant financial interest in the needless killing of fetuses and infants gross influence to manipulate and cloud the discussion. Once the purple haze has cleared, the only question that should be asked is what is moral and what is just for all parties involved, including the living fetus? The right to life should be acknowledged in all instances once there is clear and unequivocal sign that life is present. Not just when it is convenient. Because when the life of the most vulnerable is made to have inconsequential value or no value, what life then has any value?