Suppose for the sake of argument that in the months to come, it is not the protracted court battles of Norma McCorvey (aka Jane Roe of Roe v. Wade) or Sandra Cano (aka Mary Doe of Doe v. Bolten) that bring to an end the barbaric practice of murdering the unborn?
Suppose it is not the efforts of Heartbeat International, CareNet, the Pro-Life Union of Southeastern Pennsylvania, Blackgenocide.org, the Elliot Institute or former abortion clinic owner Carol Everett that rein in the heathen cash cow of Planned Parenthood and NARAL?
Suppose it is the very ones being devoured by vacuum cleaner like devices and the introduction of lethal chemicals into the womb for purposes of murdering them that bring about the end of this paganistic period?
From the first time this perverse pageant of deplorable debauchery began, women have been assiduously led to accept theirs not as an unborn child, but as a fetus.
Permit me to digress for the purpose of illumination. A fetus by definition is an unborn or unhatched vertebrate; especially after attaining the basic structural plan of its kind; specifically a developing human form usually 3 months after conception to birth.
One medical dictionary defines it as a term for an unborn baby from the end of the 8th week of conception until birth.
The crime of this intentional mendacity is it reduces the unborn child from a vision of a baby being nurtured and loved to a substance or a foreign body.
Carol Everett, former owner of two abortion clinics and director of four others wrote:
Every woman has [the] same two questions: First, “Is it a baby?” “No,” the counselor assures her. “It is a product of conception (or a blood clot, or a piece of tissue).” Even though these counselors see 6-week babies daily, with arms, legs and eyes that are closed like newborn puppies, they lie to the women. How many women would have an abortion, if they [counselors] told them the truth?
– “A Walk Through an Abortion Clinic,” ALL About Issues magazine, Aug-Sept 1991, p.117
Therein is the focus of my query. In recent weeks, America has been witness to a father (Scott Peterson) being found guilty of murdering his unborn child. Albeit very nearly full term, the child could have been brutally, inhumanely and acceptably murdered in a partial-birth procedure.
In Chicago, a 25-week, 6-day baby weighing 8.6 ounces (less than a can of soda) was delivered, is doing well and preparing to go home. Her mother had developed pre-eclampsia. The condition – affecting both baby and her mother’s health – necessitated a Caesarian section, making her the world’s tiniest baby, exceeding the old record by 1.3 ounces.
There was Victoria Jo Stinnett who was literally ripped from her dead mother’s womb – without benefit of sterilized surroundings or pre-natal care of any kind – and taken immediately into public, where for the next 24 hours she was paraded around on display by the alleged murderer and charged kidnapper.
Then there is the father charged with murdering his girlfriend’s 18-week-old unborn child by kicking her in the stomach.
My point is this: The mothers – with no excuse or reason necessary other than “I don’t want it” – could have murdered any of these children legally. But it seems incredulous to me that it can be both ways. If it is not permissible for a father to murder his 18-week-old unborn child by beating-up its mother, then how can it be argued as permissible for the mother – with perhaps less provocation (sarcasm intended) – to do the same?
NARAL Pro-Choice America President Kate Michelman, Planned Parenthood and the abortion industry as a whole continue to oppose and lobby against measures under legislative consideration, e.g., “Unborn Victims of Violence Act” renamed the “Laci and Connor Law,” when these unborn children are presenting unambiguous proofs contradicting their positions.
For the record, Michelman considers the renaming of the proposed “UVVA” to “Laci and Connor Law” “an exploiting [of] the tragic case.” Michelman opined, “It’s so crass, so offensive.”
As Newsweek wrote, “If unborn children gain any rights whatsoever, Michelman and her cohorts fear the whole basis for abortion rights may begin to crumble.” (June 9, 2004)
Coupled with unborn children being born and surviving earlier and earlier, it is the infants themselves who offer the most tangible proofs against such a barbaric industry and those who profit from its genocidal fortunes.
It also seems logical to me that there must be an enterprising lawyer somewhere who is willing to take on this murderous industry, when it is apparent that mothers to be have been lied to about the unborn they have been encouraged to destroy.
After all, attorneys successfully went after the cigarette industry and they are now trying to find a way to sue the fast-food industry. Heck, if Ramsey Clark is willing to symbolically thumb his nose at the children of those who perished during 9-11, at the children of Americans lost in battle and the families of those Saddam interred in mass graves by proudly defending him, there must be a lawyer in this country with enough moxie to defend a mother who was lied to.