Stepping into the Void; Guy DeWhitney on Abortion, Abortion Rights and the Right to Life

This is a new update and expansion of a post originally posted on Heretics Crusade in March of 2009.
Stepping into the void; the Head Heretic on Abortion, Abortion Rights and the Right to Life

DSCN2412

I am so tired of this idiocy!!!
I just read another article about the abortion/pro-choice issue. Both sides in this debate defend the indefensible though in this article was the rabidly anti-abortion Texas GOP pushing, get this:

“…a bill that would require women to sit through an ultrasound before an abortion, described in detail by the doctor, and (wait for it) require they listen to the fetal heartbeat. Oh, and if that’s not enough, they must sit idly while a doctor lectures them with some good old-fashioned anti-abortion literature.

This idiocy is best summed up by the same article (interpolation added):

The legislators who crafted this bill have no knowledge of a woman’s mental or physical health when she walks into an abortion clinic. They have no idea whether she’s been raped, had a condom break, gotten pregnant the day before her husband took off. But they are cocksure that listening to the heartbeat is going to change her mind; [and is worthwhile if it does not], no matter the pain it inflicts.

Of course the other side stands on indefensible ground as well:

Troy Newman’s Rebuttal: According to Health Department statistics in Kansas, where the majority of post-viability abortions took place, none were ever done to save the life of the mother. Post-viability abortions are never medically necessary. If the mother’s life or health are so endangered that delivery is necessary, that can be done without killing the baby. Aborting a viable baby is simply done, not for the mother’s life or health, but because that baby is inconvenient, either to the mother or to a referring physician who does not want to be bothered caring for a woman with a complicated pregnancy. Killing the inconvenient is a hallmark of an unbalanced and unhealthy society, not an enlightened one. Troy Newman’s Rebuttal: According to Health Department statistics in Kansas, where the majority of post-viability abortions took place, none were ever done to save the life of the mother. Post-viability abortions are never medically necessary. If the mother’s life or health are so endangered that delivery is necessary, that can be done without killing the baby. Aborting a viable baby is simply done, not for the mother’s life or health, but because that baby is inconvenient, either to the mother or to a referring physician who does not want to be bothered caring for a woman with a complicated pregnancy. Killing the inconvenient is a hallmark of an unbalanced and unhealthy society, not an enlightened one. Troy Newman’s Rebuttal: According to Health Department statistics in Kansas, where the majority of post-viability abortions took place, none were ever done to save the life of the mother. Post-viability abortions are never medically necessary. If the mother’s life or health are so endangered that delivery is necessary, that can be done without killing the baby. Aborting a viable baby is simply done, not for the mother’s life or health, but because that baby is inconvenient, either to the mother or to a referring physician who does not want to be bothered caring for a woman with a complicated pregnancy. Killing the inconvenient is a hallmark of an unbalanced and unhealthy society, not an enlightened one. Troy Newman’s Rebuttal: According to Health Department statistics in Kansas, where the majority of post-viability abortions took place, none were ever done to save the life of the mother. Post-viability abortions are never medically necessary. If the mother’s life or health are so endangered that delivery is necessary, that can be done without killing the baby. Aborting a viable baby is simply done, not for the mother’s life or health, but because that baby is inconvenient, either to the mother or to a referring physician who does not want to be bothered caring for a woman with a complicated pregnancy. Killing the inconvenient is a hallmark of an unbalanced and unhealthy society, not an enlightened one. Troy Newman’s Rebuttal: According to Health Department statistics in Kansas, where the majority of post-viability abortions took place, none were ever done to save the life of the mother. Post-viability abortions are never medically necessary. If the mother’s life or health are so endangered that delivery is necessary, that can be done without killing the baby. Aborting a viable baby is simply done, not for the mother’s life or health, but because that baby is inconvenient, either to the mother or to a referring physician who does not want to be bothered caring for a woman with a complicated pregnancy. Killing the inconvenient is a hallmark of an unbalanced and unhealthy society, not an enlightened one.Troy Newman’s Rebuttal: According to Health Department statistics in Kansas, where the majority of post-viability abortions took place, none were ever done to save the life of the mother. Post-viability abortions are never medically necessary. If the mother’s life or health are so endangered that delivery is necessary, that can be done without killing the baby. Aborting a viable baby is simply done, not for the mother’s life or health, but because that baby is inconvenient, either to the mother or to a referring physician who does not want to be bothered caring for a woman with a complicated pregnancy. Killing the inconvenient is a hallmark of an unbalanced and unhealthy society, not an enlightened one.”

The two sides just can’t seem to THINK for a moment lest they agree on ANYTHING that the other side believes. One might come to believe that both sides are idiots whose agendas obscure reason, compassion and religion!
On one side we have Pro-Lifers™ have a promulgated an ancient and traditional, yet previously unknown credo that they have just written. It goes something like this:

“One victorious spermatozoa out of millions wins out over its brothers, the egg wall thickens to keep out the defeated and, to give God a place to insert a newly rinsed soul; a new PERSON now exists!!

Now, you might see that there is a small problem with this credo, ancient or not; nowhere in history will you find ANY society that believed such a thing! In fact, those of the fertilization faith need to explain why, if God felt, and feels, that we are fully human right at the moment of fertilization why there had been NO WAY FOR HUMANS TO TELL WHEN THIS EVENT OCCURRED until the last hundred years? On top of that, until the precursors to the “rabbit test” were developed a hundred years ago the most reliable method any woman had for knowing she was “with child” was her waistband getting too tight, coupled with a missed period or two. Pregnancy tests have only become reliable in the last 20 years. In addition to being inaccurate, virtually all of the older home tests required a wait of up to two weeks AFTER a missed period!

Did God intend all women of childbearing years to perpetually conduct themselves as though there might be a little citizen hiding inside their tummy?

According to medical science up to half of all fertilized human eggs miscarry or do not implant before there are enough changes to the human body to detect pregnancy at all!!!

It seems to this seeker after wisdom and truth that all this would seem to show that if God decided that humanity begins with fertilization He has no problem with aborting human souls in the early stages of “personhood” with no discernible rhyme or reason.
As if that is not bad enough for the Sensible Citizens caught in the middle we have in this corner, weighing in at 98 pounds soaking wet, with a mouth full of honey, a heart of marshmallow coated marble and eyes colder than the shine on a diamond lying at the feet of Dante’s Devil…The Pro-Choicers™.

These tree-hugging cuties, starting from a time when abortion laws were Draconian to say the least the PCers (hey, that name fits them in other ways as well) have “defended women” to the point that we have seen a “family planner” cheerfully advise a pregnant woman on how to coerce a late-term abortion out of the welfare, medical and legal systems so she could abort any unwanted daughters so as to ensure a male first-born.

As far as I know they fail to highlight the point that one of the potential “downsides” can be to train the body to miscarry instead carrying a baby to full-term or close enough to it for the event to be a birth instead of a tragedy.

Do we even need to address the utter lack of morality seen in a “mother” who could even imagine nurturing a pregnancy dearly until she knows the sex; whereupon she flushes girl after girl to get her desired baby boy while knowingly circumventing the democratically established laws and committing a serious felony for such a late term fetus. Except in very special circumstances involving incest, rape, extreme defects or a threat to the life or long-term health of the mother the law normally would vigorously prosecute an abortions after the 20th week, which is the earliest solid date at which an ultra-sound can be sure to determine a child’s sex with complete certainty; are we to allow a five month fetus – only six weeks away from being viable – to be flushed down the toilet because the mother or someone with influence over her desires a boy instead of a girl?

The Left has managed to get into a position that requires the backing virtually all late-term abortions; simply because they refuse to back off one inch on the idea of a woman having total control of her body lest prudish, misogynistic Right-wingers swarm out of the churches and put all the women in hijabs covered in crucifixes and lock them in a purdah filled with Bible verses; a position for which I must admit that I feel some sympathy… but, only up to a sane limit; say just before the point where a person’s whims involve another viable but, helpless human being’s health, welfare or in this case their very existence.

Those of you on the left still standing firm let me ask you this, please think about how you might justify entering a woman’s womb, hacking what you find into piece, and then removing and disposing of the bloody remains of an “inconvenience” while bearing in mind that if the “Patient” (I refuse to call her a mother) had tripped on the steps to the abortion clinic, might have been a viable preemie!

The fact that the actual practice of late term abortions involves even more outrageous practices should truly make anyone condoning such practices ashamed for seeing an issue as black and white that has them supporting people who will commit vivisection on a pregnant woman’s whim.

Why don’t both sides get a clue and solve the problem? More and more leaders on both sides are seeing a middle ground.
Looking back through history we find that the first trimester (12 weeks) has been the most common point for societies to agree that “someone was home” in a woman’s womb. Twelve weeks, more or less, is the point when the fetus starts to look more like a potential person than a mutant frog with gland issues. Pre-Enlightenment it was commonly felt that a soul could not “hook in” to a body until there was something that at least looked like it might end up Human when it emerged into the light of day. Come the Age of Science and Lo! And Behold! It turns out that “the Quickening”, as it was known, is just about when the human central nervous system is coming alive and, the time when an embryo truly starts to become more than a lump of tissue; something like Man.

No society that I know of ever placed the moment for personhood earlier than three months or so after what we now know to be the time of fertilization due to the impossibility of their determining early pregnancy for certain.

So, Virginia, what was the most reliable pregnancy test for all but the last hundred years of human history? It is so easy a Cro-Magnon could do it! When you have missed one or two periods and your waist band is getting too tight you are pregnant; well almost certainly pregnant; at the least it is very probable that you are with child!

And that is why many societies waited well into the 3rd or fourth trimesters before getting excited about a “new person”; and some civilizations didn’t acknowledge a baby’s humanity until the child had been accepted and named after surviving a prescribed number of days, often 3 to 7.

And who were those so called civilized folks who would look at a too sickly new-born, shrug and walk away? Well Virginia, it seems they were Christians and Jews, as well as Pagans here and there; Oh My!

Yes, the same societies that produced the folks who wrote the Torah and Christian Bible didn’t consider a baby a person until a week after birth and the child had a name; the same books which the modern theocratic fools claim teach them the Holy Truth that the moment a spermatozoa “marries” an egg we get, instantly, a fully Human person deserving of full human and civil rights and robust governmental protection of said personhood.

For just a moment let us consider what enforcing a law such as this would mean.

ALL women who could be pregnant (and we can hardly take the woman’s word as to whether she has had sex recently when protecting people’s lives now can we?) must act in a manner to “protect the civil rights” of any fetus she might be carrying. Everything she does, eats, drinks, smokes or willingly experiences (i.e. medical treatments required for full health that address problems other than life-threatening) would have to be safe (and legal) to share with an infant; unless a woman choose to be sterilized, and have the state take note of the fact, she would be required to conform to a lifestyle that would have bored Elsie Dinsmore to tears, and to adhere to this virtual prison from her first menses to her medically confirmed menopause.

To embrace the credo of the American theocrats is to accept the re-enslavement of half the human race during the course of a majority of their lives. Under such laws a woman who was two months pregnant would have to be charged with willful child endangerment if she jumped into a lake to save her drowning 5 year old. Take moment and let the ramifications resonate in your heart and mind.

The only way to embrace the fantastic theology the hard right proposes would be for us to start treating American women more like property than it is currently the norm in the Saudi Arabia!

Back in the Left’s corner we have the so-called “liberal” position. Good at abstractions the Leftist is ok with pretending the hidden baby is just a piece of tissue until it starts to breathe. The “morality” of standing between women and the very real oppression of them and their bodies that totalitarians seek blinds the Liberals to the reality they endorse at the behest of the Leftists. Just as Gay Rights has been used by a few homosexuals as a cover to “mainstream” unquestionably unhealthful activity “Pro-Choice” has been used to cover people not far different from the Eugenics and forced sterilization crowds and other proponents of soulless “solutions” to social ills.
Here is my proposal for regulating abortion and pregnancies:
First Trimester: abortion legal on demand. A woman does have a right to control her body and reproduction; certainly with regard to a neoplasm with delusions of grandeur.
Second Trimester: abortion may only occur with a doctor’s recommendation based in solidly established medical art for the sole purpose of avoiding unusual and irrevocable harm to the mothers health or mental well being. A court might well be needed to pass on these but, the process would have to be fast and objective due to the approaching target of infant viability.
Third Trimester: Now, Virginia this is the key; as we see constantly in the news eight, seven and even six month preemies are survive, growing up, and thriving; given that, how can any thinking person deny that we have long since ceased discussing the fate of a “piece of tissue”?

In the third trimester a baby should be legally a person. A fetus that would be a viable baby if the mother tripped on the steps of the abortion clinic should not murdered on a whim because of a legal fiction about it needing to breathe air on its own in order to be considered an “actual” human being. The mother should be viewed by the law as though she was holding a baby in her arms 24/7.

After all, if early abortion is legal and a woman keeps the child into the third trimester can she really have any excuse to go all retroactive on a viable infant? Using legal precedent long established If there is a threat to the mother’s health or life during this time the doctors would have to use the same criteria they use when dealing with conjoined twins in deciding who lives and who dies when that choice MUST be made.

What is wrong with this? It satisfies everybody who admits to reason and compassion.

But,it seems that the Pro-life™ sheep will not accept the idea that until the kid breathes it is just a piece of meat with no consequences, and neither can anyone of sense and humanity as far as I can see. But, they need to get over their obsession with concepts that are neither Biblical, historical, or scientific.

The Pro-choice™ crowd will never accept a return to women being chattel, which is the only way to control what they do with their bodies to the extent the Radical Right would need to enforce their credo. That is not surprising given that it is also a position that most reasonable people, Conservative or Liberal reject due to ingrained Western, Enlightenment-Liberal values.

So, why not use common sense, compassion and reality to settle things intelligently? Why do we have to use women’s and baby’s lives as ropes in a hateful tug of war promulgated by two irreconcilable foes; enemies who make it perfectly obvious, if you judge them by their fruit and not their words, that they care little for babies or women, or humanity itself for that matter? It is certain that neither band of partisan fantasists will allow mere lives to stand in the way of the self-imposed mind-fuck needed for their complete “victory”.

Total Victory or Die!!” both sides cry; meanwhile women’s lives are ruined over zygotes, and fetuses that should have the right to be babies die.

The Heretic Crusader

Stepping Into The Void; Guy DeWhitney on Abortion

 Here we go again! This time it is Mississippi trying to pass a law making “personhood” begin at conception….

This is an update and expansion of a post on Heretics Crusade from March 2009.

Stepping into the void, Guy DeWhitney on Abortion, Abortion Rights and the Right to Life

ABORTION again? I am so tired of this idiocy!!! I just read another article about the abortion/pro-choice issue. Both sides in the debate defend the indefensible.

In this article it was the rabidly anti-abortion Texas GOP pushing, get this:

“…a bill that would require women to sit through an ultrasound before an abortion, described in detail by the doctor, and (wait for it) require they listen to the fetal heartbeat. Oh, and if that’s not enough, they must sit idly while a doctor lectures them with some good old-fashioned anti-abortion literature.

This idiocy is best summed up by the same article (interpolation added):

The legislators who crafted this bill have no knowledge of a woman’s mental or physical health when she walks into an abortion clinic. They have no idea whether she’s been raped, had a condom break, gotten pregnant the day before her husband took off. But they are cocksure that listening to the heartbeat is going to change her mind; [and is worthwhile if it does not], no matter the pain it inflicts.

Of course the pro-choice side stands on indefensible ground as well:

“Troy Newman’s Rebuttal: According to Health Department statistics in Kansas, where the majority of post-viability abortions took place, none were ever done to save the life of the mother. Post-viability abortions are never medically necessary. If the mother’s life or health are so endangered that delivery is necessary, that can be done without killing the baby. Aborting a viable baby is simply done, not for the mother’s life or health, but because that baby is inconvenient, either to the mother or to a referring physician who does not want to be bothered caring for a woman with a complicated pregnancy. Killing the inconvenient is a hallmark of an unbalanced and unhealthy society, not an enlightened one.”

The two sides just can’t seem to THINK for a moment lest they agree on ANYTHING that the other side believes. One might come to believe that both sides are idiots whose agendas obscure reason, compassion and religion!

On one side we have pro-lifers who have pulled a “humanity begins at fertilization” faith out of thin air. Nowhere in history will you find ANY group that believed such a thing! No one even knew of the existence of the egg until it was seen with a microscope!

If God feels we are fully human right at the moment of fertilization why has there been NO WAY TO TELL THIS EVENT until the last hundred years? Until the precursor to the “rabbit test” a woman knew she was “with child” when her waistband got tight enough or she missed a couple periods.

Did God intend all women of childbearing years to always conduct themselves as though there might be a little citizen hiding inside? That is a pretty hard ho’ to row wouldn’t you say?

Also, up to half of all fertilized eggs do not implant or miscarry before the woman even knows she is pregnant. Those two things together would seem to show that if God feels humanity starts at fertilization then He has no problem with aborting them randomly! At least not the early ones.

On the other side we have the pro-choicers. Amongst whom I nominally count myself. Starting from a time when abortion laws were Draconian to say the least, they have “Defended women” to the point that they have lost all sense.

They have managed to get themselves in a position of backing virtually all late-term abortions simply because they refuse to back off an inch on the idea of a woman having total control of her body. A position with which I must say I am in full agreement…but only to a sane limit. Say when it involves another thinking, feeling human being.

Why don’t both sides get a clue and solve the problem? More and more leaders on both sides are seeing a middle ground.

If we look back through history we find that the first trimester is the most common time for societies to decided that someone is “home” in a woman’s womb. This is when the fetus starts to look more like a potential person than a mutant frog with gland issues. They felt that a soul could not hook in until there was something there that at least looked Human. Surprise, that IS just about when the central nervous system is coming alive and the embryo starts to be more than a developing lump of tissue.

No society that I know of placed the moment earlier, due to the inability to determine pregnancy for certain before the end of the first three months. Some waited well into the 2nd trimester and some didn’t even acknowledge the baby’s humanity until it had survived a prescribed number of days and was named. Those were CHRISTIANS and JEWS as well as Pagans, OH MY! People of the same Book that these modern fools say tells them that the moment the sperm hits the egg it is a person with full rights.

For just a moment consider what enforcing a law like that means. ALL women who MIGHT be pregnant (and we can hardly take the woman’s word as to whether she has had sex recently when protecting children) must act in a manner to “protect the civil rights” of any fetus she might be carrying.

Everything she does, eats, drinks or smokes (or MEDICAL TREATMENTS she receives) would have to be safe to be shared with an infant. Unless a woman chooses in this Right Wing paradise to be sterilized, and have the state take note of the fact, she will be required to live a life that Elsie Dinsmore would have found boring, from menses to menopause.

To embrace this concept is to accept the enslavement of half the human race for a good portion of their lives. Under this law a woman who was two months pregnant would have to be charged with willful child endangerment if she jumped into a lake to save her 5 year old.

Take moment and let the ramifications resonate. The only way to embrace this concept would be for us to start treating women MORE like property than they are in the Middle East!

Then, we have the Left dominated so-called “liberal” position. Good at abstractions, the Leftist is ok with pretending the hidden baby is just a piece of tissue until it starts to breathe. The “morality” of standing between women and the very real oppression of them and their bodies that totalitarians seek blinds the Liberals to the reality they endorse at the behest of the Leftists.

Just as “Gay Rights” has been used by a few homosexuals as a cover to “mainstream” unquestionably unhealthful activity, “Pro-Choice” has been used to cover some people not very different from the Eugenics, and forced sterilization crowd and other proponents of soulless “solutions” to social ills.

Here is my proposal:

FIRST TRIMESTER: abortion is by demand. A woman does have a right to control her body and reproduction. The unstable nature of the first trimester and the lack of anything for any kind of personality to live in make this time a GOD MADE grey zone.

SECOND TRIMESTER: abortion may only occur with a doctors clear recommendation to avoid harm to the mothers health or mental well being. A court might well be needed to pass on this but the procedure would have to be FAST due to the moving target of viability.

THIRD TRIMESTER: Now this is the key, 8 and 7 and even 6 month preemies live and grow up and thrive. HOW can any thinking person deny that this is not a “piece of tissue” anymore? In the third trimester it should be LEGALLY a person.

A fetus that would be a viable baby if the mother tripped on the steps of the abortion clinic should not be a candidate for that abortion.

The mother should be viewed by the law as though she was holding a baby in her arms 24/7. After all, if early abortion is legal, and a woman keeps the child into the third trimester, can she really have any excuse to go all retroactive on a viable infant?

Using legal precedent long established, if there is a threat to the mother’s health or life during this time the doctors would use the same criteria they do when dealing with conjoined twins to decide who lives, and who dies when that choice MUST be made.

What is wrong with this? It satisfies everybody who admits to reason and compassion. The pro-lifers will not accept the idea that until the kid breathes it is just a piece of meat with no consequences. And neither can anyone of sense and humanity as far as I can see.

But, they need to get over their obsession with concepts that are neither Biblical, historical nor scientific. The pro-choicers will never accept a return to women being chattel, which is the only way to control what they do with their bodies to the extent the Radical Right need to enforce their view.

Theirs is also a position that most reasonable people, Conservative and Liberal, cannot accept without choking over Western Values and the Constitution. So why not use common sense, compassion and reality to settle things intelligently instead of women and babies being the rope in a tug of war by two sides that care little for either if you judge them by their fruit?

Total victory or nothing!!” both sides cry while women’s lives are ruined over zygotes and babies who should have rights die.

Guy DeWhitney: The Heretic Crusader