Perspectives on Abortion – Abortion (Part 2)

All arguments for abortion fail when we recognize that a fetus is a baby. That’s why liberals fight so hard to keep the discussion away from matters of life, and try to confuse the masses with talk of ’women’s rights’, the dangers of back-alley abortions, and other irrelevant topics. If a fetus is a living child, all those arguments are irrelevant. My background in Biochemistry (the study of living things on a molecular level) and my more recent research show that babies in the fetus stage fall under every definition of ’living’. Pro-abortionists want you to think that whether or not the baby is alive is irrelevant; the woman’s choice should be the most important factor.

In doing research for this book, I went to a couple of liberal friends and asked for their perspective on some of the major differences between conservatives and liberals. When abortion came up the only argument in support one of them had was protecting victims of rape and incest, or women whose lives were in danger. I can assure anyone with these concerns that it is not the intent of nearly all pro-life advocates to force a woman to carry the result of a rape to term, or to force her to sacrifice her own life. The legal precedent I stated earlier would cover these situations.  For six years I lived in the most conservative state in the nation (if you ever look at a political tracking map, Utah is always the darkest red on there) but I don’t know anyone who doesn’t agree; victims of rape, incest, or women whose lives are in danger should have the option of procuring an abortion. I still think that a child is dying, but a woman who has already been the victim of such a traumatic crime should not be forced to live with such a constant reminder. That being said, I still wish that more would choose to carry the baby anyway. I have, fortunately, never been the victim of a sexual crime. I can’t claim to have any idea what it feels like or how hard it would be. If I ever became pregnant as a result of rape I hope I would have the strength to carry to term. I would consider giving it up for adoption, or maybe keeping it, knowing that I could give it a wonderful life. I do not think I could justify killing an innocent baby simply because his father was a criminal. Some women have felt this way, and have found the baby to be a great blessing.

Fortunately, this is not often the case. 1% of all abortions occur because of rape or incest; 6% of abortions occur because of potential health problems regarding either the mother or child, and 93% of all abortions occur for social reasons (i.e. the child is unwanted or inconvenient)14.  In 93% of all abortion cases, the baby is being aborted for the convenience of the mother. These cases should be outlawed.

My other friend had a better reason, probably the most ‘compassionate’ reason I have ever heard. She wants to allow abortions for the sake of the children who would be abused, neglected or mistreated. I can understand that this is a seemingly compassionate perspective. The world is a hard place. Some children are abused, they live miserable lives, and it is almost unbearably sad to think of what they have to go through. I hardly think that allowing them to be drowned in chemicals or have their brains sucked out of their heads in order to prevent a possible misery should be the automatic solution. Many children with miserable childhoods grow up to be happy, successful adults. Most people prefer to live. Making the choice for the child and never giving it the opportunity to experience life is wrong. If you think we should abort children who may eventually be abused, then you must be in support of killing all the children who are already being abused, or taking preventative measures and castrating all abusive adults. Right?  Is there any other logical conclusion, if the perspective is that children are better of dead than potentially abused?

Many people forget that it isn’t just a choice between abortion and a miserable life as an unwanted child. This goes along with the belief that a baby will destroy a teenager’s life. Many people think it is simply more compassionate to kill the baby so the mother doesn’t have to drop out of high school and spend her life as a single mother in poverty. The option I think people most often disregard is adoption. I know there are many people who want to adopt babies, and they usually spend years on a waiting list. My aunt and uncle waited years to be able to adopt a baby. They already had one child, and weren’t sure if they would even have the chance for another, because families with children tend to be further down on the waiting list. They were lucky enough to be chosen by a teenage girl who wanted to give her son a better life. She was able to continue in High School. There was no financial burden to her, since adoption agencies typically cover all prenatal and delivery care. My aunt and uncle are grateful every day for their son, and for someone selfless enough to not kill her baby because she was embarrassed, or scared, or didn’t want stretch marks. She is an amazing woman. She took a mistake and turned it into something wonderful. She was able to learn and grow from the experience, and she was able to give my aunt and uncle something they couldn’t have for themselves.  Does that sound cheesy?  My cousin is a really child, a hyper, happy little boy with parents who love him and an incredible future.  Planned Parenthood would have recommended that he be disposed of, that he was throw into a garbage can six years ago.  Naral thinks his biological mother’s life would be better if he didn’t exist.

Some will argue that there are not enough families out there who want to adopt all the aborted babies. I could name, right now, six families that would happily take a child rather than have it killed.  I know more who have already adopted, and would do it again if the process weren’t so complicated and expensive.  I can refer you to agencies that have thousands of people on waiting lists because there are simply not enough babies available for all the families that would like them and can’t have them on their own.  Will there be so many babies all of a sudden than no one would be willing to take them?  I doubt it, just in my opinion, bit even if it were a problem I think it would take care of itself. As I said before, nearly half the aborted babies come from women who have already had an abortion. I think this percentage will become negligible, and if nearly half of all unwanted pregnancies don’t happen then a much higher percentage of the unwanted babies who are born will have available families. I also think that seeing so many more women pregnant will have an effect on teenagers who are sexually active. When they never see the consequences of having sex, they are less responsible. If they can see other teenagers who have gotten pregnant, they will realize that it is a real possibility, and they will be more careful. Instead of encouraging women to choose a life without consequences, choosing to take no responsibility for their mistakes, choosing to murder the only innocent participants, they should be encouraged to do the selfless, loving thing and give their babies better lives.

The rest of the chapter I’m going to concentrate on information I’ve found about abortion. I haven’t had any experience with abortion, I’m not even sure I know anyone who has had an abortion. So I have to depend on other sources to relay information on the effects and experiences of having an abortion. The following is from a task force report done in South Dakota15 -We received and reviewed the testimony of more than 1,940 women who have had abortions. This stunning and heart-wrenching testimony reveals that there are common experiences with abortions. Women were not told the truth about abortion, were misled into thinking that nothing but ”tissue” was being removed, and relate that they would not have had an abortion if they were told the truth. -They relate that they were coerced into having the abortion by the father of the child or a parent, and that the abortion clinics also apply pressure to have the abortion. They almost uniformly express anger toward the abortion providers, their baby’s father, or society in general, which promote abortion as a great right, the exercise of which is good for women. They almost invariably state that they were encouraged to have an abortion by the mere fact that it was legal.

-They are stunned by their grief and the negative impact it has had on their lives. Many of these women are angered by grief at the loss of a child they were told never existed. One woman testified before the Task Force about three abortions she was misled into having, only to find that she was rendered infertile by the vacuum aspiration that damaged her fallopian tubes. She was distraught at having to explain to her new husband why they could never have children. Each of these women’s stories is powerful.

-The overwhelming majority of women testified that they would never have considered an abortion if it were not legal. Their testimony revealed that they feel that the legalization of abortion simply gave a license to others to pressure them into a decision they otherwise would not have made. Most of the women stated that abortion should not be legal.

-Just two months ago, I personally took care of a baby boy born to a very young teenage mother who was allegedly raped by her brother. So here we have the two scenarios brought forth most often by those on the pro-abortion side, rape and incest. This brave young lady carried her child to term and delivered a healthy normal boy. Here is an interesting fact that you may not be aware of. Just as two bad genes might pair up and lead to an unfortunate outcome, two good genes can pair up, and the infant of this incestuous relationship, may become the brightest person in the family sometimes in the genius range of intellect. They are normal children at least 97 to 98 percent of the time. This young teenage mother that I just spoke of, when she found out she was pregnant, felt that besides herself, the only other really innocent person in this sad situation was her baby, and he certainly didn’t deserve capital punishment for her brother’s sins. What great insight for someone so young! I wonder how many employees of Planned Parenthood would have encouraged and supported this young lady’s courage to choose life for her newborn son.

-Gissler and colleagues (1997) reported post-pregnancy death rates within one year that were nearly 4 times greater among women who aborted their pregnancies than among women who delivered their babies. The suicide rate was nearly 6 times greater.

a. It is almost universally accepted that the unborn child can experience pain by 24 weeks after conception. b. The evidence supports the conclusion that the unborn child experiences pain by 20 weeks post-conception, at the latest. c. That there is a considerable body of evidence, increasing in recent years, that the unborn child may experience pain as early as 11 weeks post-conception. d. It is possible that the unborn child experiences pain as early as 7 weeks post- conception. 16 Beginning at 5 weeks post-conception the unborn child responds to touch and the development of the brain is well under way; b. Brain activity can be detected at 7 weeks post-conception; c. The lower brain begins activity around 10 weeks post-conception; and d.The higher areas of the brain are active at 23 weeks post-conception, and at 24 weeks the neurological signals can be processed from the thalamus to the cortex.

The entire report was over 70 pages long. Naturally, pro-abortionists found the report to be highly biased, and full of fallacies and misinformation. I personally don’t like phrases like almost all and almost universally accepted. I prefer numbers and background information. I still thought the report contained some interesting information, certainly nothing I could have found on Planned Parenthood’s website, or Naral.org. The following is an article from Naral’s website. They give states grades on how well they conform to the mentality that abortion on demand is a desireable thing. I looked up Utah, knowing that it is a very conservative state, and this is what I found:

Utah Biased Counseling & Mandatory Delay

A woman may not obtain an abortion until at least 24 hours after the attending or referring physician, a nurse, nurse-midwife, or physician’s assistant orally, in a face-to-face consultation, tells her: (1) the probable gestational age of the ”unborn child”; (2) a description of its development; (3) the risks nature of the proposed abortion procedure, ”specifically how th[e] procedure will affect the fetus”; (4) the alternatives to abortion, including private and agency adoption methods; (5) that adoptive parents may legally pay the costs of prenatal care and childbirth; and (6) the medical risks of

carrying the pregnancy to term. If the person providing this information at least 24 hours prior to an abortion is not the attending or referring physician, the attending or referring physician must also provide this information in a face-to-face consultation prior to the abortion. In addition, at least 24 hours prior to an abortion, the woman must receive a state-mandated lecture by the attending or referring physician, nurse, nurse-midwife, clinical laboratory technologist, psychologist, marriage and family therapist, or social worker, orally and in person, that includes: (1) that medical assistance benefits may be available for prenatal care, childbirth, and neonatal care; (2) that the ”father” is liable for child support, even if he offered to pay for an abortion, and that a state agency will assist her in collecting child support; (3) that she has a right to view a free ultrasound of the ”unborn child”; and (4) that the Department of Health produces printed materials and a video that describe gestational stages, abortion methods, and public and private agencies and services, including adoption agencies and services, available to assist the woman through pregnancy, upon childbirth, and while the child is dependent.

In addition, the woman must receive state-prepared printed materials and be asked to view a video immediately or at another designated time and location. A woman who declines to view the video immediately or when designated must be provided a copy. The state-prepared printed materials and video must: (1) describe with pictures, in a manner that conveys the state’s preference for childbirth over abortion, the anatomical and physiological characteristics of the ”unborn child” at two-week gestational increments, including the possibility of survival; (2) describe abortion methods, the consequences of each procedure to the fetus at various stages of development, the ”possible detrimental psychological effects of abortion,” and the medical risks associated with each procedure, including those related to subsequent child-bearing; (3) describe the risks associated with carrying the pregnancy to term; (4) include information about medical assistance benefits for prenatal care, childbirth, and neonatal care and the ”father’s” liability for child support; (5) state that a physician who performs an abortion upon a woman without her ”informed” consent may be liable to her for damages in a civil action and that adoptive parents may legally pay the costs of prenatal care, childbirth, and neonatal care; (6) list public and private agencies and services available through pregnancy, at childbirth, and while the child is dependent, including a comprehensive list of names, addresses, and telephone numbers of public and private agencies and private attorneys whose practices include adoption, and an explanation of possible financial aid available during the adoption process, or include a 24-hour hotline that may be called to obtain such a list; (7) present adoption ”as a preferred and positive choice and alternative to abortion”; and (8) convey the state’s preference for childbirth over abortion. In addition to including the information provided in the state-prepared materials, the video must show an ultrasound of the heartbeat of an ”unborn child” in monthly increments from three-weeks gestational age until 14-weeks gestational age in a manner designed to convey the state’s preference for childbirth over abortion, and the positive aspects of adoption. A woman is not required to receive the information otherwise required if: (1) her physician can demonstrate that he or she reasonably believed imparting the information would have caused a ”severely adverse” effect on the woman’s physical or mental health; (2) the abortion is necessary to preserve the woman’s life; (3) the pregnancy is the result of rape or incest; (4) the fetus would have been born with grave defects; or (5) the woman is 14 or younger.

So, the only thing I can gather from that summary, is that NARAL is pro-uninformed choice. Everything stated there is a negative, which is why Utah garners an ’F’ when it comes to abortion. Naturally, it’s quite okay to have laws that make you wait three days to buy a gun. But having to wait 24 before deciding to kill your child? Preposterous! Absolutely medieval! Obviously an unconstitutional infringement on women’s rights. And making sure they know what will happen to the fetus as they abort it is also an infringement on rights. I thought most medical procedures required you to sign a statement saying you were aware of the risks and that the procedure had been explained to you. But for some reason, the less you know about the abortion procedure, the better. Not just better; the less you know, the more your pro-choice rights are being exercised. The more you know, the more your rights are being trampled on.

Just a couple of final points. I’m really sick of the bumper-sticker phrase, Against abortion? Don’t have one! Seriously? How about this, Against gun ownership? Don’t buy one! Against the dealth penalty? Don’t work on death row! Against rape? Don’t commit one! And a special one for all our New Yorkers, Don’t like trans-fats? Don’t eat them! Yes, I am against abortion, and I have never had one. But for some reason I’m still not satisfied with the thought of millions of innocent babies being killed for the convenience of women who think their ability to continue having sex without consequences is more important than an innocent life. Also, calling yourself ’pro-choice’.  Pro what choice?  I am pro-choice, I just don’t support the choice to kill babies. I’m pro all kinds of choices, like the choice to attend a private school for $3000 instead of spending $9000 on a lower quality public education. I’m pro choice when it comes to guns; I love having lots of guns to choose from, I like being able to choose to carry it with me, and my constitutional right to a gun it spelled out a lot more clearly than my constitutional right to kill children. I’m pro choice when it comes to my money; I would love it if the government would let me choose what to spend my tax dollars on, instead of confiscating them and wasting them. I’m pro choice on seatbelts and lightbulbs.  The only choice you are referring to is abortion, so why not label us pro-abortion and anti-abortion?

Also be aware that Planned Parenthood is very pro-abortion. They want their customers to get an abortion, as much as they claim they are just helping women make an informed choice. They are a business; in 2006-2007 they made over $1 billion in income. There is no money to be made in encouraging girls to keep their babies or put them up for adoption. They make money by performing abortions, and so that is what they want their customers to do. On its website, Planned Parenthood says it ”highlights our advancements in providing and protecting trusted health care services and medically accurate sexuality education.” Yet the more abortions they do, the more money they make. When Planned Parenthood says they encourage women to make the choice that is best for them, remember that they make money performing abortions. When they claim that abortions are safe, easy and relatively painless, remember that they make money performing abortions. People are motivated by profits. They want what is best for themselves. I have also wondered (and this is a very tangential thought) about how liberals would feel in a different situation. I saw a news article a couple of years ago about a panda in a zoo that might be pregnant. The pandas are rare, and everyone gets very excited when one of them is pregnant. If a doctor went to the panda and performed an abortion, what do you think the public response would be? Do you think the general sentiment from the pro-choice liberals would be, It doesn’t matter. It was just a lump of tissue. It wasn’t a baby panda. They might complain that the mother hadn’t chosen an abortion, but she probably wouldn’t choose to reside in a zoo or have her mates picked out for her either, so just one more choice being taken away from an animal that can’t tell us what it wants shouldn’t be a big deal. No, I think they would be absolutely outraged that the doctor had killed a baby panda. I think they would want his head on a platter. I think he would be charged with every conceivable offense, despite the fact that he had done no harm to the mother panda, and (as they claim) had done nothing more than remove the equivalent of a tumor. They would not universally proclaim that it was just a fetus without a life and that it doesn’t matter. They know that fetuses are babies; they just won’t admit it.

When you get past all the arguments for or against abortion, it comes down to this: Is the baby alive? All the other arguments are irrelevant. If you look at a biological definition, then yes, babies are alive from the moment of conception. If you look at a legal definition, then yes, babies are alive once they have measurable brain activity. Their hearts start beating when they are three weeks old. Limits need to be put on abortion.  Every abortion kills a biologically living child.

Advertisements

About whyimconservative

I'm a stay-at-home, homeschooling mom with a Biochemistry degree living in Austin. I love my kids, my husband and my country. I want to explain why I'm conservative.

Posted on June 2, 2011, in On Abortion and tagged , , , , , , , , . Bookmark the permalink. 8 Comments.

  1. “victims of rape, incest, or women whose lives are in danger should have the option of procuring an abortion. I still think that a child is dying, but a woman who has already been the victim of such a traumatic crime should not be forced to live with such a constant reminder.”

    That statement is not at all consistent with logic you previous used, namely:

    “That’s why liberals fight so hard to keep the discussion away from matters of life, and try to confuse the masses with talk of ’women’s rights’, the dangers of back-alley abortions, and other irrelevant topics. ”

    That’s exactly what you’re doing (at least in regards to forced conception). You’re relegating the issue of life and death of an individual and instead focusing on the maternal emotional effects. It’s nice to want to inject a level of sentimentalism into the situation, but ultimately it’s not intellectually sound.
    The other issue, of maternal safety, is irrelevant as, within the modern field of medicine, abortion is never directly used as a treatment for pregnancy complications; simply put, maternal safety is a bridge best crossed when, if ever, gotten to and is irrelevant currently.

    “but I don’t know anyone who doesn’t agree”
    I actually don’t know (IRL) anyone who is both pro-life and pro-conditional abortion. Seriously. I think the level of conservatism found in a state only points to the likelihood of someone being pro-life in general rather than opinion on specifics.

    • Did you read the portion of my post concerning legal precedent on what obligations one has to prolong or save another’s life at their own expense? It covers this question completely.

      • Do you mean this part?

        “Legally, you have no obligation to save another person’s life.
        . . .
        If you are walking over a bridge and see someone drowning beneath, you do not have to do anything for them. BUT, if you walk by and accidentally knock someone into the water, you do need to try to help them, up until your own life is in danger. This covers a couple of the examples proponents of abortion always bring up; what if a woman has been raped, or her life is in danger? Well, if she has been raped then she is not responsible for the baby, and if her life is in danger than she is not responsible to sacrifice hers for the baby.”

        Very weak argument. You seem to be saying that “legality” and “logic” are reasonable substitutes for morality and the fact of fetal life in some cases.

        I’d also like to know how you feel about the legal precedent of never prosecuting a woman or girl who obtains an abortion — the burden is always placed on the practitioner, as if the woman is an innocent victim. In reality, if someone had the same role in a premeditated murder — that of transporting the victim to the place of death for the purpose of allowing another to kill it — that person would be charged as an accomplice. How do you feel about letting women off the hook this way?

      • I mean everything that I say. I’m using legal arguments because morality is subjective and is easily dismissed by opponents. If there is legal precedent for one human to have an obligation to save another’s life, I think that is relevant to the abortion discussion.

        I agree that if abortion is considered murder, the mother would definitely be an accomplice in the murder. Are there specific cases you are referencing?

  2. so you state that a fetus is alive, what about during the embryonic period? you’d consider that alive too?

    • I don’t know what you mean by ’embryonic period.’ At all points while in the uterus that fetus consumes, produces waste, responds to stimuli and grows it falls into the biological definition of ‘alive’.

  3. theangstfactory

    Okay, so a lot of the things you’ve posted on this blog I consider wrong and bigoted and such…

    But in this case, I think you make a good point. Here’s another good point: The second the sperm and the egg join, there’s a new cell that has different DNA from the mother, ergo the argument: Your body, your choice is rendered invalid. Although the cell resides in her body, it is no longer part of her.

    I’ve had it argued, “But the mother still has to have it in her, it’s not fair!” A being’s dependance on someone does not make it right to kill it.

    Once, I was reading an article in a magazine about women’s rights, and how people were horrified that baby girls in China were left in the streets to die, because boys are more prized. I, too, was horrified, then I realized that the magazine, which was very feminist (I consider myself a feminist, by the way, just not a murderer), wouldn’t have considered them alive a week ago, whilst they were still in their mother’s womb.

    It’s disgusting, the way people act as if the embryo is not a person. To quote Seuss (Which I always love to do) “A person’s a person, no matter how small”.

    Why does it matter how many cells a being is made of? If they have their own individual DNA, they are their own person.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: