Third-term abortions a travesty

Friday, February 8, 2019

In the five-plus years I have been blogging, I don't think I've ever written a controversial post. But I feel I need to respond to the recent state of New York legislation on abortion. That, together with recent comments by the governor of Virginia, have compelled me to say something about the wretched lack of regard for life here in our country.

Originally, I was only going to simply respond to some pro-choice Facebook posts, but I've never liked getting into online arguments, and they never seem to go very well anyway . . . So here are my thoughts.

Although I believe that life begins at conception and that all abortion is the taking of a life, I am completely horrified by the expansion of abortion through the full term of pregnancy and the idea of taking the life of a baby who can survive outside the womb, as is now law in the state of New York.

This legislation allows abortion up to the baby's due date if necessary "to protect the mother's life or health." The now-tabled state of Virginia bill allowed abortion if the mother's physical or mental health would be "impaired." 

There is no medical reason to abort a baby to save the life of a mother in the third trimester. None. Early delivery may be indicated in order to save a mother's life, such as in the case of a mother with preeclampsia, but delivering early can save both the mother and the baby's life. 

And if a mother's mental health might be "impaired?" We certainly can provide the psychological care needed to help her through a month or two until the baby is born, and after. Adoption is a life-giving option. There are so, so many couples unable to have children who are longing to adopt.

I'm sorry, ladies. It is not your body. Fair or unfair, the moment you became pregnant, it was your body and another person's body. Google "sovereign zone argument" and "right to refuse" argument for interesting and compelling arguments supporting the pro-life position in this regard. 

And, in what could be another whole post, I believe, at its core, that abortion is anti-woman, a violation of the essential nature of us as life-bearers.

In addition, almost all third-trimester babies can survive outside the womb. The age of "viability" is recognized as 24 weeks. A baby born at the start of the third trimester, that is, at 27 weeks, has a 90% survival rate, and those born at 32 weeks and beyond have a 95% and greater chance of survival.

 *** My own sweet grand baby was recently born at 34 1/2 weeks. He is healthy and well. ***

You have two premature babies in the hospital. One is getting life-saving treatment in the NICU. He will go home soon. The other, down the hall, has just been aborted. The difference? One was wanted and the other one wasn't. Is this our criteria for life?!

I have heard pro-choice people say that we pro-life people are only pro-baby and not pro-children. In other words, we only care about outlawing abortions; we don't care anything about the lives of those babies after they are born. We don't care if they are born into poverty and we don't support, for example, social service programs that help poor women and children.

There are two problems with this argument, as I see it.

First of all, even if this were true, and it is unequivocally not, it has nothing to do with whether the murder of babies is right or wrong. And I'm sorry, we pro-life people are generally polite, and don't use the word "murder," but hey, it is what it is.

Do we say, let's get rid of our veterans because we don't have the social services and support network to take care of them? Do we get rid of our elderly because they don't have the health care and quality of life that they should have? Is there any other population group that we agree to dispose of because their lives are difficult, or because we sometimes as a society allow them to fall through the cracks?

Whether or not a person has or is going to have a good quality of life has nothing to do with whether or not they deserve to have life. God help us if this is our standard. I think the early eugenics programs attempted something like this. Iceland now boasts it has no Down Syndrome in its country at all (because those babies have all been aborted); ask a family with a Down Syndrome child if his or her life is not valuable.

Of course, we must always do what we can to help the most vulnerable in our society. Children, low-income families, the elderly, people with disabilities, veterans who have fought our wars and need medical and psychological help . . . we need to provide safety nets. But no human alive is guaranteed a life without struggle. Accidents, disabilities, loss of jobs, deaths of loved ones, aging . . . it happens to all of us at some point. We don't have the right to take away life because it might be hard.

Secondly, pro-life people do care about babies and children. I have pro-life friends who have adopted, who foster children, who work at social service agencies to help the poor and marginalized. Pro-life friends who tutor inner-city children after school, run programs for disadvantaged rural youth, conduct job training and parenting classes for women who have chosen to keep their babies. The list goes on.

I said this would be a controversial post. But really, why it should be controversial is beyond me. It's appalling to think that any sane person would agree that it should be legal to take life, and especially in the third trimester.

I have always prayed that one day -- soon -- we will look back on the era of Roe v. Wade with the more than 60 million aborted babies in its wake, and cry out in anguish and in repentance for what we have done. It has been a holocaust.
Made With Love By The Dutch Lady Designs