Thursday, April 19, 2007

The Pretty Picture and the Not So Pretty

Today I saw a 4D ultrasound image of our unborn granddaughter. Her eyes were closed. Her nose is shaped like her big brother's. Her cheeks and lips remind me of her mamma's. She has been growing for five months and is due to be born on her great-grandfather's birthday, a birthday gift that will please him pink.

If her parents believed differently this precious child could be killed any of the nine months inside her mother's womb. If the Supreme Court had not upheld the Congressional ban on partial birth abortion, she would be eligible to die a grisly death that we cannot legally inflict on the worst of murderers.

After partially delivering the baby, the abortionist plunges scissors into the skull to kill it or crushes the skull. It makes me shudder every time I think of it.

But it doesn't make the Democratic candidates for president shudder. Instead they shudder that the Supreme Court would prevent this horrendous procedure.

John Edwards wrote on his website:
I could not disagree more strongly with today's Supreme Court decision. The ban upheld by the Court is an ill-considered and sweeping prohibition that does not even take account for serious threats to the health of individual women.
What John Edwards does not take into account is that "serious threats to the health of individual women" do not require the killing of the baby in the last few months when the little one can live outside the mother's womb. If the mother did not want her, she could be put up for adoption. The judges did take into account that no legitimate health needs of the mother requires the killing of a late-term baby, especially not in such a grisly way. Do you think it's legal to do this to unborn puppies and kittens? Imagine if this had been done to known terrorists in Abu Ghraib or Guantanamo! But to an unborn baby? It's important to John Edwards that this method of killing a child be available to women!

How about Barak Obama? Compared to Edwards, he's the model of reason and smoothness, isn't he? Not this time. On his website, he writes:
I strongly disagree with today’s Supreme Court ruling, which dramatically departs from previous precedents safeguarding the health of pregnant women.
And Hillary Clinton? Being a woman and a mother, having carried a daughter to term, having felt the butterfly kisses of her baby's movements, Chelsea's hiccoughs, and midnight calisthenics, surely she'll oppose the grisly procedure!

Don't count on it!

Mrs. Clinton writes on her website:
This decision marks a dramatic departure from four decades of Supreme Court rulings that upheld a woman's right to choose and recognized the importance of women's health. Today's decision blatantly defies the Court's recent decision in 2000 striking down a state partial-birth abortion law because of its failure to provide an exception for the health of the mother. As the Supreme Court recognized in Roe v. Wade in 1973, this issue is complex and highly personal; the rights and lives of women must be taken into account. It is precisely this erosion of our constitutional rights that I warned against when I opposed the nominations of Chief Justice Roberts and Justice Alito.
Most Americans look at this terrible procedure and wonder how you can justify it. The baby has committed no crime. Yet it is sentenced to a death not allowed to the grossest mass murderer. And partial birth abortion's defenders would scream the loudest against it if Osama Bin Laden, Saddam Hussein, or Ted Bundy had been put to death this way!

But you see abortion is not about babies. Baby is a four-letter word to liberals. Babies interfere with a woman's availability for sex. Pregnancy can be a deterrent to having fun with a married man or a one-night stand with someone who doesn't want commitments.

Think I'm making this up?

Andrea Dworkin, a radical feminist who wrote "the most important book of the decade" according to Congresswoman Bella Abzug, said in that book, Right-Wing Women,
It was the brake that pregnancy put on (obscenity for intercourse) that made abortion a high-priority political issue for men in the 1960s.... The decriminalization of abortion...would make women absolutely accessible, absolutely "free." The sexual revolution in order to work, required that abortion be available to men on demand. Getting laid was at stake. (94-94)
You see, to liberal politicians who pride themselves on civil rights and compassion, abortion isn't about babies. It's about sex. It's about having fun without visible consequences. It's not about the next time a baby loses its life to a pair of scissors; it's about the next time someone wants to "get laid" without consequence or responsibility.

And then, that may not be the only reason they support abortion. There's always campaign contributions from Planned Parenthood and the abortion industry to consider.

I feel dirty now. I think I'll look at my unborn granddaughter's picture and try to guess what name her parents have chosen to surprise us all.

Debbie W. Wilson

Debbie W. Wilson is a human rights advocate, speaker, and author of Christy Award-winning thriller Tiger in the Shadows. Her weekly prayer list for the persecuted church can be found on the home page of Bound Together Ministries.

Labels: , , ,


Post a Comment

Subscribe to Post Comments [Atom]

<< Home