http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/artic ... E_ID=48563
The 'choice' to kill your child
Posted: January 30, 2006
1:00 a.m. Eastern
© 2006 WorldNetDaily.com
With the 33rd anniversary of Roe v. Wade, the Supreme Court decision legalizing abortion, we're inundated with rhetoric by those who act as though life as we know it will end if women can't "choose."
It does bring out the "best" from them, including the shameful young woman who bared her very pregnant belly to the news cameras during the "Walk for Life" march in San Francisco, exposing a message painted on her skin: "My baby is pro choice."
I doubt her baby would choose to be killed, but she did get her picture in the paper.
Then there was the male pro-choice supporter who carried the sign "F#$* the Unborn."
Classy, eh? And the law supports them?
Who would have thought that in the day of car bombs, maniacal terrorists, not-so-veiled threats about wiping countries off the map and ending whole civilizations, that it appears the focus of our elected politicians is on something so small, that at the beginning it's invisible to the naked eye.
What is this supposedly greatest challenge facing our country and our future? It comes under the medical term "abortion" – the ending of a human pregnancy.
Abortion can happen naturally for a variety of reasons, some of which are known. When that happens, it's medically called a spontaneous abortion. Because doctors want to be kind to the parents, they call it a miscarriage. It's not something the mother desires. She wants her baby.
The other kind of abortion is the one we read about in our headlines – the one which demonstrators demand as a "right" – the one about which our politicians rail and pontificate, making it seem that if women don't have that right, it's all over.
I decided to check definitions and what I found in my trusty Webster's New World Dictionary is fascinating.
What is this state called "pregnancy"? What is this condition that women "find" themselves in and that women want the right to end? Regarded in those terms, it sounds as though it's a condition that applies only to the woman. Look further.
The definition of pregnant: "having (an) offspring developing in the uterus; with child."
In the event you don't know, the definition of "offspring" is: a child or children; progeny; young."
Those definitions make it difficult for one to defend the position that there's no baby in that uterus or that it isn't "alive" or that it isn't a human.
Unless I missed something in my biology education, there's no way a mammal species is going to have the young of another species in its uterus. When a mammal is pregnant, it's carrying its own developing young.
That's why when a woman is pregnant, the physician has two patients – the woman and her baby.
Unless, of course, the woman doesn't want the baby; then it's not a baby. It's a fetus, a blob of tissue – anything but a baby and she claims she has the right to end the pregnancy.
You'll notice that those women, and the men who take the same position, and the medical people who do the deed, and the politicians who champion all those actions never say they are ending a life. They are, they say, terminating a pregnancy – it's a medical procedure.
It sounds so much cleaner.
The only problem is that it isn't clean. Yes, they are terminating (intentionally ending) the pregnancy and the procedure is called an abortion. It's done with the prior intent that the child growing and developing in the womb not survive.
I mean, after all, if he or she lived, that would spoil everything, wouldn't it? On the other hand, it's a fact that if babies survive being aborted, they are left alone until they die. Nice, eh?
Consider the definition of "abortion": "premature expulsion of a fetus so that it does not live, especially if induced on purpose."
How much more clear do you need it? The purpose of an abortion, regardless of the reason or rationalization, is to end life.
Note the last phrase: "induced on purpose." When you intentionally end the life of something – anything – you are killing it.
Seems to me, abortion is the intentional killing of a developing human being.
Very often, abortion is done in the months before the child could survive outside the womb and that's the rationalization that it's OK – it couldn't live anyway, so it's fine to kill it – oops ... I'm sorry, terminate the pregnancy. Kill is such a harsh word. Then again, so are the words "end the life." (See the above definition.)
It can get worse – and it does.
Consider the "medical procedure" called "partial-birth abortion." In this, a pregnancy is ended (terminated) just prior to the normal birth date. When the head of the child comes out, the "doctor" pierces the skull, sometimes crushing, sucking out the brain.
Quick, neat and effective – rapidly ending the life of the child and then the rest of its body is pulled out.
What a neat way to avoid murder. If that child took a breath outside the womb that doctor and his accomplices might spend the rest of their lives at the Graybar Hotel.
As it is, they can go to real bars to toast their support of a woman's right to choose.
Of course, what they are choosing is the death of a baby, but after a few drinks, reality gets a bit fuzzy and that's exactly where we find ourselves.
It's all fuzzy because words are played with. You are not "pro-abortion," you are "pro-choice." But if you are "pro-life," you are called "anti-abortion."
Women, it's insisted, have the right to "choose" to end pregnancies with an abortion, but they aren't usually given the option of other choices, for example, adoption or even ways to have the baby and make her life work out.
Pregnant women who, we are told, need to be fully informed medically about whatever is done to them, are routinely denied or never offered the opportunity to see what her baby looks like with ultrasound before the abortion.
We wouldn't want her to really see that that blob of tissue has a human form, arms and legs and eyes.
It's more than difficult to decide to kill your own child when you can see what it looks like. It's much easier to abort when you don't fully know what you are doing. That is exactly what's happening every single day in this country.
I know one woman who had already had an abortion, who'd had other children out of wedlock and was pregnant again. She decided to abort – until she saw the ultrasound picture. She couldn't go through with it – she couldn't kill her baby. And she didn't.
She gave birth and gave her perfect child in adoption to a couple who couldn't have children of their own.
Her courage and generosity were heroic. She saved an innocent life and helped create a family.
This did not happen in the United States.
It's not too farfetched to think that if ultrasounds were a U.S. requirement before an abortion, innocent lives would be saved and millions of people desiring to adopt would have their prayers answered in our own country. And more women would be heroic instead of child killers.
Get your copy of Kelly Hollowell's eye-opening new book, "Struggling for Life: How our Tax Dollars and Twisted Science Target the Unborn."
