A Question About Abortion

United States House of Representatives Seal

United States House of Representatives Seal (Photo credit: DonkeyHotey)

A pregnant woman

All my life I’ve never ever understood one aspect of the Pro-Life vs Pro-Abortion fight; and it has come up again this week as the U.S. House of Representatives debates a bill that would make abortion of 20 weeks of pregnancy illegal. My question is…why is it so darned important that pro-abortion (pro-choice…if you prefer) advocates hold on to the right to kill what is undeniably a viable human life so late in a pregnancy even if the pregnancy is the result of a rape? If my math is right 20 weeks is nearly five months.

As usual cooler heads always fail to prevail in the debate over abortion. It’s like common sense simply doesn’t exist on this subject. The lack of common sense produces insensitive Republican politicians making asinine statements like “legitimate rape” and that there “Was a low rate of pregnancy from rape” as AZ-R Trent Franks said yesterday. And it leads to Democrats defending the actions of murderers like the Philadelphia abortion quack Kermit Gosnell.

Yesterday the House Judiciary Committee passed the “Pain-Capable Unborn Child Act” on a strictly party line vote. It bans abortion 20 weeks after conception based on the premise that at 20-weeks unborn babies can feel pain. Democrats offered repeated Amendments, which were all rejected, including granting exceptions for cases of rape and incest. Upon having such Amendments rejected Democrats continually scorned Republicans, calling them insensitive, uncaring, brutal and other standard epithets for opposing their desire to ignore the fact that they want the right to choose killing a viable human life…regardless of its genealogy.

But the insults again led me to wonder what I have always wondered. If pregnant through rape or incest why not get an abortion LONG before the fifth month? Why wait so long? I accept the fact that I might be missing something, and I welcome a cool-headed pro-abortionist to explain to me why ignoring a human life is less important than allowing a pregnant woman to procrastinate endlessly…or at least through the entire nine month pregnancy. I am pro-choice and pro-human life. I believe a fetus in the first trimester is not human and a woman’s right to govern what happens to her own body should not be infringed. But I also believe a BABY in the third trimester is a viable human life, capable of survival outside the womb. It’s the 2nd trimester that’s a grey area I claim no strong feelings for, one way or the other; except to say when in doubt value life over choice and protect the innocent baby.

But when asked to extend the right to an abortion through the entire pregnancy I sincerely don’t understand. Isn’t it common sense that if you allow someone, anyone, man or woman, to procrastinate…they will? Or am I the only kid in school who only did his homework in the final couple days before it were due in spite of having the homework assigned some two-three weeks prior? By establishing a national law and understanding that you, the pregnant woman, MUST decide to keep or abort your pregnancy by the 20th week of your pregnancy…guess what…they’ll decide. And even if they pass the 20 week point having not decided a woman now as always still maintains the right to give up the child for adoption, a far more favorable option than the abominable choice of choosing to kill a viable human life.

Approximately 1.3-million abortions are performed in this country every year. That’s over 50 million since 1973 when Roe vs Wade became the law of the land, and only 1.3% of them were performed at 21 weeks of gestation or later. Between 88-92% of abortions are performed in the pregnancy’s first trimester. Is it so much to ask that the small percentage, the TINY percentage of women who can’t make up their minds in five months to get an abortion be prevented from doing so once that baby can feel the pain of being killed? I honestly don’t think it’s so much to ask. But I welcome someone explaining it to me.

Thanks for visiting. Comments are welcome.

Abortion is a Red Herring- Woman Aren’t Stupid

Washington DC: United States Supreme Court

United States Supreme Court

As the final weeks of the 2012 Presidential election campaign draw to an end Barack Obama is pinning his hopes for re-election on an increasing few number of things. One is Big Bird. The other is scaring women into believing big bad Mitt Romney

Mitt Romney, former governor of Massachusetts,...

Mitt Romney

is going to take away their right to an abortion. But a close examination of the abortion issue should put to rest most of the concerns Obama is trying to raise.

First of all Mitt Romney has softened his position by recently stating that he has no plans to pursue any abortion legislation once in office. Democrats, liberal media and, of course, Obama campaign officials jumped all over this as another flip-flop by a man they’ve been able to label a flip-flopper saying not pursuing legislation to outlaw or seriously restrict abortion is contrary to his position in the Republican primaries that he would sign any bill put before him that did so. For the truly stupid and inept reading this let me make clear there is no inconsistency in the two statements. There is a difference between “pursuing” something and signing that which someone else pursued, achieved and stuck in front of you.

But the reason this whole issue is a red herring designed to scare women and really sensitive men is because of a little thing called the United States Supreme Court. In 1973 in the case of Roe vs Wade the Court ruled abortion to be legal throughout the land. Furthermore, attempts in legislatures around the country to impose restrictions on abortion access have met with mixed results at best. It’s noteworthy that Reagan Supreme Court appointee Sandra Day O’Connor

English: Sandra Day O'Connor, 1st Female Assoc...

Sandra Day O’Connor Associate Justice of the Supreme Court of the United States

in Casey vs Planned Parenthood and Webster vs Reproductive Health Services, twice voted to strike down portions of state laws restricting access to abortions. And O’Connor was joined in fellow Reagan appointee Anthony Kennedy and George H.W. Bush appointee David Souterin the Casey decision.

Associate Justice David Souter of the US Supre...

Associate Justice David Souter of the US Supreme Court

http://www.pewforum.org/Abortion/A-History-of-Key-Abortion-Rulings-of-the-US-Supreme-Court.aspx

If my point is not obvious let me be pointed by saying we’ve had three Republican Pro-Life Presidents since 1980 occupying office 20 years and in spite of their Supreme Court appointments Roe vs Wade remains the law of the land, with only a few reasonable restrictions having been OK’d by the court since. Abortion is here to stay. And Mitt Romney being elected President isn’t going to change that. So all naive and alarmist voters who buy into Obama’s scare tactics can take a deep breath and vote for Romney with a clear conscious.

Under the Pro-Choice/Democrat/Obama worst case scenario in order for abortion to be made illegal in this country here is what would need to happen:

1. Mitt Romney would have to win election. Even though odds of this are looking better every day, its far from a slam dunk.

2. Mitt Romney would have to stick with his position during the republican primary season to sign a bill banning abortion rather than revert to his position to protect abortion rights when he was running for governor in 2002.

3. One of the five liberal to moderate Supreme Court Justices would have to die or retire in the next four years.

4. President Romney would have to name and win appointment of a Pro-Life Justice to The Court to replace the Liberal Justice who departed. Not such an easy task when Pro-Choice advocates would be fully aware and would strongly oppose such an appointment, knowing such a successful appointment would conceivably tip the balance of the court into overturning Roe vs Wade.

5. Some city or state would have to overcome popular opinion and pass a law banning abortion or restricting so much that a court challenge would be inevitable.

6. A court challenge of such a law would have to be brought. And in being brought it would still face between 2-5 years before actually reaching the Supreme Court (and who knows what the configuration of the court would be at that time).

7. The newly configured Supreme Court would have to rule to overturn Roe vs Wade, something it has specifically chosen not to do in 9 different rulings since 1973.

and lastly…

8. With 70% of Americans believing some form of abortion ought to be kept legal; Congress would have to ignore that HUGE demand from the electorate and NOT immediately pass a new Constitutional Amendment allowing some form of abortion.

Common sense and basic math says the likelihood of all those things happening is astronomical. And if it did happen it would still be many years from now.

Democrats present themselves as the protectors of women’s abortion rights. And maybe they are. But they aren’t going away any time soon, though many of us sometimes wish they would. So just like its been for the past forty years abortion will remain legal. Even electing a Pro-Life President, like Mitt Romney says he is (now) doesn’t mean any justice he names to the Court will win appointment; and upon winning appointment to this life-time post there is no guarantee that same Justice won’t do as O’Connor, Kennedy, and Souter did previously and uphold Roe vs Wade.

So go ahead ladies. Don’t be stupid. Don’t fall for the red herring. Vote for Mitt Romney.

Thanks for visiting. Comments are welcome.