Photo by Becca Davis Photography.
About two months ago, I wrote a blog called “How Pro-Life Am I Really?” Since that time, I have thought more about the topic, especially since recent days mark the 40th anniversary of Roe V. Wade.
On January 22, 2013, the 40th anniversary of Roe. V. Wade, hundreds of thousands of people marched in Washington, D.C. They marched to protest a law that half of our country sees as protecting reproductive rights but a law which another half of our country sees as a death penalty for the millions of babies being aborted/murdered under its sanction.
I know kind-hearted and well-intentioned people who fight for abortion rights. Some of these people would be the first to vote for laws, curtailing Second Amendment rights, oil-drilling on US soil, Green-House Emissions, child-abuse, and animal-abuse. Yet, the incongruity is that these very people who dogmatically support protecting any other life form find it not only acceptable but laudable to support the abortion of the unborn — all under the guise of “reproductive rights.” Why this inconsistency?
Some support abortion because they have believed that a fetus isn’t a baby. Some believe that a woman’s rights trump the baby’s rights. Some believe they are saving the woman by rescuing her from the burden of carrying and caring for an unwanted baby. Some even believe they are “helping” the baby to not be born into a situation where they are “unwanted.”
My first blog on this topic addresses when life begins. In it, I wanted to establish that life begins at conception. Since I wrote that blog, even more liberal abortion “rights” supporters are acknowledging when life begins. The following link is to a liberal’s blog regarding this:
Direct quotes from the blog by Mary Elizabeth Williams, writer of the Salon:
“Here’s the complicated reality in which we live: All life is not equal. That’s a difficult thing for liberals like me to talk about, lest we wind up looking like death-panel-loving, kill-your-grandma-and-your-precious-baby storm troopers. Yet a fetus can be a human life without having the same rights as the woman in whose body it resides. She’s the boss. Her life and what is right for her circumstances and her health should automatically trump the rights of the non-autonomous entity inside of her. Always.
“When we on the pro-choice side get cagey around the life question, it makes us illogically contradictory. I have friends who have referred to their abortions in terms of “scraping out a bunch of cells” and then a few years later were exultant over the pregnancies that they unhesitatingly described in terms of “the baby” and “this kid.” I know women who have been relieved at their abortions and grieved over their miscarriages. Why can’t we agree that how they felt about their pregnancies was vastly different, but that it’s pretty silly to pretend that what was growing inside of them wasn’t the same? Fetuses aren’t selective like that. They don’t qualify as human life only if they’re intended to be born.
“When we try to act like a pregnancy doesn’t involve human life, we wind up drawing stupid semantic lines in the sand: first trimester abortion vs. second trimester vs. late term, dancing around the issue trying to decide if there’s a single magic moment when a fetus becomes a person. Are you human only when you’re born? Only when you’re viable outside of the womb? Are you less of a human life when you look like a tadpole than when you can suck on your thumb?
“…And I would put the life of a mother over the life of a fetus every single time — even if I still need to acknowledge my conviction that the fetus is indeed a life. A life worth sacrificing.“
Unbelievable! Yet, this is actually a positive step in some ways — to be truthful that it is life and that most abortion activists know this. This then leads people to question whether the author’s claim is acceptable?
Do women really have the right to choose death or life for their babies — based on the mother’s convenience or inconvenience? In other words, are mothers more important than their babies, their children? Is it acceptable for a mother to choose to terminate her pregnancy because the baby is depending on her own body? Society wouldn’t say it is okay for a mother to terminate the life of her born children so why then when they are unborn?
Again, in my first blog, I address the dangers with people being allowed to choose the worth of another human’s life. Isn’t that in essence what we are advocating by saying a mother has the right to terminate an unwanted pregnancy? If everyone knows a fetus is a baby — just one not born yet — then what is the excuse for aborting it? The excuse is rights — that the mother has the right.
The question to be asked is, “Why does the mother have the right?” Is she more valuable then her child?
If someone has a right to end someone else’ life, then we are judging or placing a value upon one human right verses another human right. We are saying that one human life, the mother, has more value than her unborn child; thus, the mother can choose to terminate her pregnancy.
When one human life is deemed more worthy than another, a moral travesty has occurred. Such a belief leads to the perpetration of horrific evils: slavery, genocides, the Holocaust. This belief naturally leads to Euthanasia, Infanticide, and eventually the elimination of any forms of “less desirable” humans, such as the mentally impaired.
Past history has shown us where our present trends will and are leading. (If you want to know the future, look to the past.)
Our nation’s Declaration of Independence says,
“ We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. — That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, — That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness.”
As our Declaration of Independence says, “All men are created equal.” The “creation” of man does not begin once a baby enters the birth canal. As humans, we don’t derive our value and rights as soon as we leave our mother’s wombs! Our worth is not based on our habitations. Our worth is based on who we are — we are humans — with the highest form of created intellect, with souls, and in the image of God Himself!
Planned Parenthood likes to sound as if they are for protecting women and their rights. If this is true, then why don’t we see them counseling the woman regarding all the options (brochures on adoption options and pregnancy care facilities)?
If their true goal is to help woman, why don’t they seek to protect the rights of unborn women (and men)?
If their goal is to protect woman, why don’t they report when a minor is pregnant due to relations with an adult male?
If their goal is to protect woman, why don’t they ask the minor if her parents love her and then encourage her to get their counsel and support?
Why do they separate the minor from any forms of support she might have?
If their goal is to help women, why don’t they encourage the education of women by giving the women informed information on abortion procedures, truthful answers as to the recovery process, Post-Abortion Syndrome grief counselor’s business cards, and even give the women the option to have an ultrasound procedure done first if the woman desires. Why not make it be an option they can choose or reject?
If Planned Parenthood is so much for the help of women, why does it promote an aggressive sex education program that excites and incites more sexual promiscuity among youth? Why do they seem so satisfied with the results of more sexual activity among minors? Is that truly beneficial? What is their end goal?
If the end goal of Planned Parenthood is not about truly helping women but more about promoting a profitable financial agenda, then you will see them endorsing and advocating programs that encourage a promiscuous lifestyle that results in unplanned pregnancies and that then results in abortions.
If the goal of Planned Parenthood is about the money-making opportunities in the abortion industry, then you will see them discourage informed consent, parental notification, ultrasounds, alternative option counseling, grief counseling, abortion education, etc… Instead, you will see the push for quick, private, pressured decisions. Instead, you will hear the deceptive terms of “rights”, “inconvenience” promoted.
Abortion has also been falsely promoted under the excuse that more women will have “back-alley” abortions if it wasn’t legal. In other words, the excuse is given for legalized abortions that we make a wrong more convenient so that supposedly fewer women are harmed in the process. In other words, if women can do it more conveniently, this justifies the action itself? Using that same logic, should we keep our doors unlocked and perhaps even post a “Welcome” sign to robbers so that they don’t get injured in the process of trying to break in and steal? Fewer robbers would be injured that way!
If abortion is murder, which it no doubt is! Wait. Some are already responding with, “How can you say it is murder?”
If there is life, a heart beating and then some outside force comes and violently dismembers that being and stops that heart, I would indeed say it is murder. The result is death! We had a life; now, we don’t. Fairly simple conclusion.
There is also the point that legalized abortions, clinical abortions, still end in women being permanently injured and even dying — not to mention the millions of babies killed every year through abortion procedures.
Dr. Bernard Nathanson, one of the early supporters of legalized abortion, in later years admitted that the coat hanger stories were mostly fabricated as propaganda to promote the abortion industry.
Wikipedia gives this history on Dr. Bernard Nathanson:
“Bernard N. Nathanson (July 31, 1926 – February 21, 2011) was an American medical doctor from New York who helped to found the National Association for the Repeal of Abortion Laws, but later became a pro-life activist.
“Nathanson was born in New York City. His father was an obstetrician/gynecologist, the same career that Nathanson held in his professional life. Nathanson graduated in 1949 from McGill University Faculty of Medicine in Montreal.
“He was licensed to practice in New York state since 1952 and became board-certified in obstetrics and gynecology in 1960. He was for a time the director of the Center for Reproductive and Sexual Health (CRASH), then the largest freestanding abortion facility in the world. Nathanson has written that he performed more than 60,000 abortions. Nathanson also wrote that he performed an abortion on a woman whom he had impregnated.
“Originally a pro-choice activist, Nathanson gained national attention by then becoming one of the founding members of the National Association for the Repeal of Abortion Laws (later renamed the National Abortion Rights Action League, and now known as NARAL Pro-Choice America). He worked with Betty Friedan and others for the legalization of abortion in the United States. Their efforts essentially succeeded with the Roe v Wade decision.”With the development of ultrasound in the 1970s, he had the chance to observe a real-time abortion. This led him to reconsider his views on abortion. He is often quoted as saying abortion is “the most atrocious holocaust in the history of the United States”. He wrote the book Aborting America where he first exposed what he called “the dishonest beginnings of the abortion movement”. In 1984, he directed and narrated a film titled The Silent Scream, in cooperation with the National Right to Life Committee, regarding abortion. His second documentary Eclipse of Reason dealt with late-term abortions. He stated that the numbers he once cited for NARAL concerning the number of deaths linked to illegal abortions were ‘false figures’.
“Referring to his previous work as an abortion provider and abortion rights activist, he wrote in his 1996 autobiography Hand of God, ‘I am one of those who helped usher in this barbaric age.’ Nathanson developed what he called the ‘vector theory of life’, which states that from the moment of conception, there exists ‘a self-directed force of life that, if not interrupted, will lead to the birth of a human baby.’
In other words, stories are fabricated, truth is suppressed, an agenda is promoted — all under the guise of ‘woman’s rights’ — when in reality, women are being extorted in order to advance the monetary profit and selfish lifestyles of its proponents.
It is easy for those within the pro-life movement to decry the proponents of the abortion industry. In the process of condemning the evil of abortion, it is also possible and easy to condemn those who have been deceived by its lies. Those who call themselves pro-life must also recognize that women are the victims too.
Women are the means to the monetary ends for those who benefit from the coffers of the abortion industry. Women are extorted and abused under the guise of helping them and promoting their “rights”. The sexuality of women is degraded and abused. It is casually promoted to the extent that its value has been debased to the vulgar.
What should be a blessing and an honor to women has been vulgarized to be a burden and hindrance. The “invocation”, dignity, and distinction of motherhood has been redefined as the ignoble and the nugatory.
As Mother Theresa said:
Mother Theresa of Calcutta:
“America needs no words from me to see how your decision in Roe v. Wade has deformed a great nation. The so-called right to abortion has pitted mothers against their children and women against men. It has sown violence and discord at the heart of the most intimate human relationships. It has aggravated the derogation of the father’s role in an increasingly fatherless society. It has portrayed the greatest of gifts — a child — as a competitor, an intrusion, and an inconvenience. It has nominally accorded mothers unfettered dominion over the independent lives of their physically dependent sons and daughters. And, in granting this unconscionable power, it has exposed many women to unjust and selfish demands from their husbands or other sexual partners. Human rights are not a privilege conferred by government. They are every human being’s entitlement by virtue of his humanity. The right to life does not depend, and must not be declared to be contingent, on the pleasure of anyone else, not even a parent or a sovereign.” –Blessed Mother Theresa of Calcutta, “Notable and Quotable,”
Wall Street Journal, 2/25/94, p. A14
To be pro-life means that one not only recognizes the evil of abortion but that one sympathizes with its victims. It does not mean the condemnation of the mothers; it means the empathizing with women who are just as much the victims of abortion as their unborn children. It means that we, who call ourselves pro-life, must support, educate, “empower” women to understand that they do not need to be the victims of our society’s abuse and degradation of our sexuality. It means that we must understand our value — our value in God’s eyes. It means that we must seek healing for those who are and have recognized their deception and who grieve in agony as a result.
It means that we must with courage speak up while we still have the power and breath to do so — to be the advocates for woman and their unborn children so that the abuses and the deception is made apparent, restrained, and finally obstructed!