unborn-child

The Texas Senate will begin a new Special Session today, as required by Governor Rick Perry, to undertake legislative agenda items that were not addressed in the previous special session which ended ignominiously when State Senator Wendy Davis (D SD10), assisted by Leticia Van De Putte (D SD26) and others, engaged in a filibuster in order to block passage of the bill which would affirm the state’s interest in protecting the lives of pre-born children who feel pain by banning abortion at 20 weeks post-fertilization.  Senate Bill 5 also requires all abortion clinics to meet the same health and safety regulations as an ambulatory surgical center, requires a doctor providing abortions to secure admitting privileges at a nearby hospital, and lastly, requires a doctor to personally administer the abortion-inducing drugs to the patient.

While the vote to pass the legislation took place amid the chaos of an unruly mob of over 100 Pro-abortion protesters who had jammed into the Senate gallery and began shrieking non-stop (egged on by Democrat Senators) when passage seemed imminent, Lt. Gov. David Dewhurst announced 3 hours later that votes had been submitted after the midnight deadline, thus ending all chances to pass the bill onto Gov. Perry for his signature.

As a believer in the sanctity of life, my personal belief is that when an abortion takes place (outside of rape, incest or imminent danger to the mother), a tragic act has unnecessarily taken the life of a child. The potential person the as-yet developing child could have become has been snuffed out forever. Younger people, especially Millenials seem more inclined to limit abortion rights, with those who say abortion is “morally wrong” at a rate of 58%, which indicates that an increasing number of the younger generation understands and believes that abortion should be limited to certain circumstances, and within certain timeframes.

That being said, a woman carrying the fetus in her womb is and should be – as an individual human being empowered to make the decisions governing her own body – entitled to reach her own decision on whether or not to end her pregnancy. The rights of the father of the child, while real and important, are secondary, and the outrage and distress experienced by Pro-Life supporters and others are external to an individual woman’s right to govern her own body.

As a society, we value the rights of an individual to decide for themselves the course their future takes. For many women, this can mean choosing to end an undesired pregnancy. While the vast majority of people view this as a tragedy, ultimately, the decision should be left to each individual woman to decide, with the advice of her physician.

But let us not delude ourselves by engaging in base sophistry as a means of assuaging our guilt and discomfort over the process and its end result. When a woman chooses to have an abortion – for any reason – it is not “unviable fetal tissue” that is being removed, but a child which is dying. It is not “fetal mass” that kicks tiny legs and thrashes tiny arms in a vain effort to fight for survival, but a child in the final pain-filled moments of its brief existence. As a society, we should be governed by reason and truth – not deception, and this pursuit of the truth should lead us to the admission that abortion results in the death of a child. While a woman should have the right to choose an abortion, we should not engage in willing self-deception to obfuscate the nature of the act taking place, and medical and insurance records should reflect this reality, listing the death of the child.

133794_600
#StandWithWendy by Eric Allie

A woman has the right to decide what happens with her body, and anything contained therein, including her baby. If a woman decides that she wants to end her baby’s life, that should be her right. She should be entitled to go to an abortion provider who will employ tools and techniques designed to end the baby’s life, and she should be entitled to a corpse, regardless of whether the baby is born alive or not.

“I kept doing whatever I was told.” said Adrienne Moton, former employee of Women’s Medical Society – Dr. Kermit Gosnell‘s abortion mill. Those things she was told to do included cutting the necks of at least 10 babies after they were born. Gosnell told her it was standard procedure, she said.

What any woman should not be entitled to is the endorsement and willing participation of society and requiring everyone to get their hands bloody as well by paying their share for it. This requires excluding abortion coverage from the premiums insurance providers charge, it means completely eliminating any tax-payer funding for any organization which engages in abortion-related activities as well.  Abortions can adequately be covered with supplemental insurance, paid for by individual women. For those who cannot afford insurance, several options exist, including activist groups such as National Network of Abortion Funds (NNAF) which provide funding to cover the termination of pregnancies. There is no justifiable reason to require the financial contribution and involvement of  those who view abortion as the murder of children.

At the end of the day, there are those who #StandForLife, and whose values drive them to pursue policies which protect children, women and families. Conversely, there are those who choose to #StandWithWendy – by necessity on dead children. We do not have to agree, nor do we have to approve, but the choice is theirs to make.

10 thoughts on “In Defense of a Woman’s Right To Choose

  1. It is amazing that on the One hand someone who kills a Pregnant Woman or causes the woman to lose her fetus can be charged with double Murder. But at the same time if another woman aborts a fetus on her own it isn’t.

    In the first instance the Fetus is considered a separate person. As someone Mentioned a person with their own unique DNA, separate from the Mother. In the second instance somehow the Fetus is just some appendage of the Mother. Clearly a legal disconnect. A morass of moral mis-judgements !

    However, the issue of Rape and Incest will divide people on this issue even on the conservative side. Someone’s feeling about being the product of a Rape or incest. Or another’s opinion about their own rape and subsequent pregnancy are certainly valid and vital to the discussion. But a woman should never be prevented from her own decisions about the Crime of Rape and incest forced upon her.

    I agree with Vda

    I agree

    Like

  2. I work as a volunteer with Juda Myers and Choices4Life we are there to help save the lives of that 1% everyone seems to be willing to let die. I am happy that so many are coming to the pro-life position but i am sad that so many are so quick to condemn the innocent babies because of the sins of the father. All life is a precious gift from God.

    Lets not forget the human male or female in a loving relationship or in a hostile rape can ever make a baby. Only one has the power to make life and that is our God himself.

    While the devil does evil on the world and rape is evil God uses the evil in the world for good.

    I have met and talked with people conceived from the loins of a repast Juda is one but they all are thankful to be alive and may of them live for Christ.

    I would ask that you talk with Juda and see what she has to say about her life being worth the effort to save.

    http://choices4life.org/

    Like

  3. “That being said, a woman carrying the fetus in her womb is and should be – as an individual human being empowered to make the decisions governing her own body – entitled to reach her own decision on whether or not to end her pregnancy. The rights of the father of the child, while real and important, are secondary, and the outrage and distress experienced by Pro-Life supporters and others are external to an individual woman’s right to govern her own body.”

    OK, let me ask whether or not you have considered the following:

    1 — If it is “her” body we’re talking about, then does the unborn have her DNA? If not, then it isn’t really her body, but that of another person — a defenseless person. And isn’t the govt. supposed to defend the rights of the defenseless? SO shouldn’t government be protecting the unborn?

    2 — If the unborn is not a person, then how and why do people get charged with manslaughter and murder for causing the death of an unborn child? Does the mother’s desire to keep the baby make the difference between whether or not the baby is considered human? Be VERY careful with that answer as it can apply WAY past this situation 😉

    3 — If the Father’s rights are secondary, then how can he later be held responsible for the child? If the mother has the baby, why can’t the father just say “I wanted an abortion” and be absolved of all responsibility? Otherwise, if the mother has the child over the father’s will, then the father is being told he has NO rights past the point of conception — and THERE is the trap: if he has no choice past that point, then by what irrational twist of reasoning does the mother?

    🙂

    Like

    1. Thanks for your response. Each of these is a result of government intrusion causing conflicting regulations and policies. Laws created in response to emotional reactions tend to cause contradictory results. In the most basic analysis, a cold-hearted calculus leads one side of the political argument to support a woman’s right to choose: the dead babies have no voice and can’t vote. Sadly, “Defending the defenseless” is not how the govt determines its interest. Unfortunately all of this is ultimately a function of the feminist ideology & dogma. The fetus has value only if a WOMAN says it does, the father of the baby has a responsibility only if the mother determines it is in her interest. As far as they’re concerned, a man’s thoughts in the matter are to be disregarded. Worse still, our courts are designed with an outdated perspective that does not serve families, but only perpetuates their destruction.

      Like

      1. Well, historically, this entire issue is connected to the attack on our founding which severed the Declaration from the Constitution. Were that connection still intact, the issue of abortion would be a moot point.

        Like

  4. When do parents become responsible for the life of their children? Except in the case of rape, both parents make choices prior to conception that they know can result in the creation of a child. After learning that their choices did, in fact, create a child, are they not responsible for the life of their child? Yes, the mother’s body is also involved. But so is her child’s. Except in extreme circumstances, the argument for terminating their child’s life before delivery is basically one of comfort and convenience. I don’t find that sufficient cause to terminate the life of a child created by their choices.

    Like

    1. I don’t either, but at the same time, as a society we cannot compel women to carry pregnancies to term if they refuse to do so. They have a right to do with their bodies as they wish. All we can do is speak the truth and educate the next generation. We have to work on taking whatever steps we can to ensure that the majority view of abortion become as widespread as possible – that the act of abortion results in the death of a child. Once this becomes the prevailing sentiment, abortion rates will decline and shift public perception.

      Like

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