I don’t understand. Truly, I don’t. For years, I have tried to comprehend how anyone could support abortion-on-demand after the first trimester. I have tried to comprehend the overwhelmingly liberal media slant that permeates the issue in favor of abortion. Democrats and the media have even stopped using the term “pro-life” and now use the term “abortion opponents” in an attempt to “level the playing field” for abortion proponents. Anyone who speaks out against abortion is relegated to the sidelines as right-wing extremists who are conducting a “war on women” and their “right to choose”. Vile, hate-spewing, militant activists never cease in their attacks on those who threaten their agenda to encourage infanticide, even if the only reason for an abortion is because the pregnancy is deemed “inconvenient”.
So, for the sake of argument, let’s remove 1st trimester abortions from the equation. Let’s remove abortion except in the case of rape or incest or health of the mother from the equation. Let’s remove Biblical scripture used to affirm the sanctity of life from the equation. Let’s strip it down and then someone tell me how any woman in her 2nd trimester could possibly feel the movement of her baby for the first time, those beautiful “butterfly kisses”, those flutterings of life in her womb, and not fall in love immediately with her unborn child?
Although unimaginable to me, what if she doesn’t fall in love with her baby and decides to seek an abortion? If she is already in her second trimester and she chooses to abort her baby, is the woman made aware by her doctor that the life she carries will be dismembered limb by limb? Does she know that the baby’s skull can be punctured to make it easier for the baby to pass through the cervix? Or, is she just told that a simple “D and E” will take care of her unwanted “problem”? What about the doctors and nurses that assist in the woman’s “right to choose”? Just how many abortions must a doctor perform before he becomes calloused at the sight of a baby’s individual arms and legs as they are forcibly removed from its mother? At what stage does the dismemberment of a baby become “ho-hum-just another day at work”?
One state wants to make it a felony to “ dismember” a fetus. Politico reports: “…South Dakota may be laying new groundwork to end legal abortion at any point after the first trimester—first in the state but, also, if history repeats itself, for the country. What happens in far-off South Dakota, in other words, very likely won’t stay there.
House Bill 1241, which was filed in early February, would make it a felony to “dismember” a living fetus during an abortion procedure. According to the bill, “the term, dismember, means to use an instrument or procedure for the purpose of disconnecting any bones at their joint, completely severing any bones, or removing any organs or limbs, including the spinal cord, arms, legs, and internal organs…”
Linked in the same article is a statement from Priests for Life [all emphasis mine]:
“… When the question is, “Should we allow abortion?”, the debate is unwieldy and ambiguous, catching people in a seemingly endless and wearisome maze of arguments and counterarguments. But when the question is, “Should we allow a child to be pierced in the skull with scissors while still alive and partially delivered?”, the public comes much more quickly to a consensus. And that consensus in turn affects their view of the overall abortion question.
Now it’s time for Act 2.
The most common abortion procedure performed after the first trimester of pregnancy is the “D and E” (Dilation and Evacuation), a procedure which is legal throughout the nation, and which the Supreme Court itself described in this way:
“The doctor grips a fetal part with the forceps and pulls it back through the cervix …, continuing to pull even after meeting resistance from the cervix. The friction causes the fetus to tear apart. For example, a leg might be ripped off the fetus as it is pulled through the cervix and out of the woman. The process of evacuating the fetus piece by piece continues until it has been completely removed.”
(Gonzales vs. Carhart, April 18, 2007)
Now is the time to ask the American public, whether pro-life or pro-choice, a simple question: Should dismemberment of a living child in the womb be permitted? Let’s go beyond the all-encompassing question of “Should abortion be allowed?” and ask, “Should this specific procedure, in which a child’s arms and legs are ripped off, and head crushed, be allowed?…”
In 1991, as a young mother, I wrote a letter to the editor of a newspaper that had demonstrated again and again, through its biased coverage, which side of the abortion issue they were on. I was not part of the “Silent Majority” then and I am certainly not now.
What has changed since my first attempt at “activism”? Nothing, except that when a state legislature has to pass a law to stop gruesome deliveries of unwanted babies, something has gone terribly wrong with the heart and soul of our nation. Abortion activists can scream all they want for politicians (i.e. Republicans) and those opposed to abortion to “Stay out of our vaginas!”, as if anyone would want to be there, and hurl other baseless accusations and mischaracterizations of those that oppose abortion. No longer should they be allowed to constantly drive the dialogue and twist the truth-however it suits their purposes.
Is there a war against women? No, it is simply a war for babies. Let our response be clear: “Stop ripping babies limb by limb from your wombs!”
What type of people would argue against that?