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