What in the name of hell—I mean that literally—have we become?
In January 2019, the state of New York passed into law the Reproductive Health Act, which allows for abortions up to 24 weeks and even permits abortion up to the point of birth depending on circumstances. Immediately afterwards, Virginia Democrats proposed House Bill 2491, The Repeal Act, which would repeal restrictions on third trimester abortions, up to and including the delivery of the baby. Though the bill was tabled in subcommittee, it prompted a national debate in the media and among politicians over late-term abortions.
In January 2019, the state of New York passed into law the Reproductive Health Act, which allows for abortions up to 24 weeks and even permits abortion up to the point of birth depending on circumstances. Immediately afterwards, Virginia Democrats proposed House Bill 2491, The Repeal Act, which would repeal restrictions on third trimester abortions, up to and including the delivery of the baby. Though the bill was tabled in subcommittee, it prompted a national debate in the media and among politicians over late-term abortions.
Critics claim such laws open the gates to infanticide. Many in this camp believe that all abortions are wrong, others that those after the first trimester should be banned. Both groups—and this includes Democrats as well as Republicans—were horrified by these proposals.
Defenders of these measures argue that human life only begins when the baby leaves the womb and becomes self-sustaining apart from the mother. They contend that late-term abortions are very rare—they are correct—and that they usually occur only when the life of the mother is on the line.
Both the New York law and the Virginia bill blur that requirement. In Virginia, for example, the current law requires three physicians to certify that continuing the pregnancy during the third trimester might result in the mother’s death or “substantially or irremediably impair” her health. The proposed changes required the certification of only one physician, and authors of the bill removed the “substantially or irremediably” clause.
Despite many advances in technology such as ultrasound and in utero photography, these same people also continue to refer to a fetus as a "clump of tissue."
Let’s ask some questions.
But first let’s pause and look at a short video: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WH9ZJu4wRUE
Now, some questions:
How is a fetus at 12 weeks a “clump of tissue?”
If the fetus is not a human being, then on what sort of creature are physicians operating when they perform in utero surgery?
If the fetus is not a human being, how can the state bring charges for murder against an assailant who kills a baby in the womb?
Go online and look at a picture of a twenty-week-old fetus. How is this not a human being?
Do those who make our laws know what occurs when a 30-week-old fetus is aborted? Do they understand the procedures required to tear this non-human from the womb?
And just how did abortion rights become the heart of feminism? Why do feminists of the Left refuse to recognize as feminists those women who oppose abortion?
Why, in view of the serious ramifications of the new law for women and abortion, did Governor Cuomo order certain buildings in New York City bathed in pink lights as a celebration of the Reproductive Health Law?
What will future generations think of a society that, awash in birth control devices and supposedly better “sexually educated” than their ancestors, celebrates abortion? Will historians some day look back at our views and laws on abortion, and judge us as air-conditioned savages?
Like some of my readers, I know well a person suffering from dementia. She is able to feed herself, but recognizes none of her loved ones and is dependent on others for everything from food to housing. So I’m curious: Is she a viable human being?
In his brief essay, “A View Of Abortion, With Something To Offend Everyone,” novelist Walker Percy writes “The current con, perpetrated by some jurists, some editorial writers, and some doctors is that since there is no agreement about the beginning of human life, it is therefore a private religious or philosophical decision and therefore the state and the courts can do nothing about it. This is a con. I will not presume to speculate who is conning whom and for what purpose. But I do submit that religion, philosophy, and private opinion have nothing to do with this issue. I further submit that it is a commonplace of modern biology, known to every high school student and no doubt to you the reader as well, that the life of every individual organism, human or not, begins when the chromosomes of the sperm fuse with the chromosomes of the ovum to form a new DNA complex that thenceforth directs the ontogenesis of the organism.”
Near the end of this same essay, Percy adds this thought: “Picture the scene. A Galileo trial in reverse. The Supreme Court is cross-examining a high school biology teacher and admonishing him that of course it is only his personal opinion that the fertilized human ovum is an individual human life. He is enjoined not to teach his private beliefs at a public school. Like Galileo he caves in, submits, but in turning away is heard to murmur, ‘But it's still alive!’"
The earth revolves around the sun.
And that fetus is alive.
Defenders of these measures argue that human life only begins when the baby leaves the womb and becomes self-sustaining apart from the mother. They contend that late-term abortions are very rare—they are correct—and that they usually occur only when the life of the mother is on the line.
Both the New York law and the Virginia bill blur that requirement. In Virginia, for example, the current law requires three physicians to certify that continuing the pregnancy during the third trimester might result in the mother’s death or “substantially or irremediably impair” her health. The proposed changes required the certification of only one physician, and authors of the bill removed the “substantially or irremediably” clause.
Despite many advances in technology such as ultrasound and in utero photography, these same people also continue to refer to a fetus as a "clump of tissue."
Let’s ask some questions.
But first let’s pause and look at a short video: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WH9ZJu4wRUE
Now, some questions:
How is a fetus at 12 weeks a “clump of tissue?”
If the fetus is not a human being, then on what sort of creature are physicians operating when they perform in utero surgery?
If the fetus is not a human being, how can the state bring charges for murder against an assailant who kills a baby in the womb?
Go online and look at a picture of a twenty-week-old fetus. How is this not a human being?
Do those who make our laws know what occurs when a 30-week-old fetus is aborted? Do they understand the procedures required to tear this non-human from the womb?
And just how did abortion rights become the heart of feminism? Why do feminists of the Left refuse to recognize as feminists those women who oppose abortion?
Why, in view of the serious ramifications of the new law for women and abortion, did Governor Cuomo order certain buildings in New York City bathed in pink lights as a celebration of the Reproductive Health Law?
What will future generations think of a society that, awash in birth control devices and supposedly better “sexually educated” than their ancestors, celebrates abortion? Will historians some day look back at our views and laws on abortion, and judge us as air-conditioned savages?
Like some of my readers, I know well a person suffering from dementia. She is able to feed herself, but recognizes none of her loved ones and is dependent on others for everything from food to housing. So I’m curious: Is she a viable human being?
In his brief essay, “A View Of Abortion, With Something To Offend Everyone,” novelist Walker Percy writes “The current con, perpetrated by some jurists, some editorial writers, and some doctors is that since there is no agreement about the beginning of human life, it is therefore a private religious or philosophical decision and therefore the state and the courts can do nothing about it. This is a con. I will not presume to speculate who is conning whom and for what purpose. But I do submit that religion, philosophy, and private opinion have nothing to do with this issue. I further submit that it is a commonplace of modern biology, known to every high school student and no doubt to you the reader as well, that the life of every individual organism, human or not, begins when the chromosomes of the sperm fuse with the chromosomes of the ovum to form a new DNA complex that thenceforth directs the ontogenesis of the organism.”
Near the end of this same essay, Percy adds this thought: “Picture the scene. A Galileo trial in reverse. The Supreme Court is cross-examining a high school biology teacher and admonishing him that of course it is only his personal opinion that the fertilized human ovum is an individual human life. He is enjoined not to teach his private beliefs at a public school. Like Galileo he caves in, submits, but in turning away is heard to murmur, ‘But it's still alive!’"
The earth revolves around the sun.
And that fetus is alive.