Thursday 6 February 2020

Trump Called For A Ban On Late-Term Abortion. Here’s Why The Arguments Against A Ban Are Absurd And Dishonest.

During his State of the Union address on Tuesday night, President Trump called for a ban on late-term abortions. This plea was made all the more vivid and powerful by the presence of a two-year-old girl in the audience who was born at 22 weeks gestation. Medical advances have made pregnancies “viable” well before the third trimester, and there’s no reason to think this trend toward earlier and earlier viability won’t continue.
Of course, the argument for banning late-term abortion is morally unassailable. There is no “clump of cells” dodge available to defender of this practice. Babies in the second trimester are at least the size of an adult’s hand — we’re not talking about a microscopic embryo, as pro-aborts would like us to imagine — and have all of their limbs and other recognizable human features. Midway through the second trimester and thereafter they can be safely delivered.
Abortions at this stage are necessarily brutal. The cervix is pried open; the amniotic fluid around the child is sucked out, and the victim is ripped apart limb-by-limp with a sopher clamp. Third-trimester abortions are even more barbaric. A poison needle is stabbed through the mother’s abdomen and into baby’s skull. Humans at this stage of development have a fully functioning nervous system, so the execution will be agonizingly painful for the child. There is no effort made whatsoever to limit the suffering. Such efforts would acknowledge the humanity or at least the life of the child, which is something the abortion industry cannot do. The mother will be forced to carry her dead baby around in her womb for two days before delivering the corpse. In some cases, the baby survives the initial injection and has to be given another one. It is no exaggeration to say that we treat rats and cockroaches with more dignity than this. And this is what President Trump wants to ban. Hardly an extreme position.
But the abortion industry’s minions in the media cannot accept any restrictions on abortion at all. And lacking any ethically sound argument in favor of literally tearing viable children apart, they resort to lies so shameless they’d be funny if not for the subject matter. In response to Trump’s comments last night, a number of abortion advocates took to social media to spread the absolutely bizarre claim that “there is no such thing” as late-term abortion and late-term abortion  “isn’t a thing.” It wouldn’t be any crazier or more delusional for me to rebut Elizabeth Warren’s “billionaires are evil” schtick by claiming billionaires don’t exist.
On the contrary, late-term abortions are most certainly a thing. Even estimates in liberal publication tell us that this “very rare” (read: existent) procedure accounts for “only” 1.3 percent of abortions. But 1.3 percent amounts to over 5,000 babies torn to pieces or stabbed in the head. If this is a small number, it is only small in comparison to the gargantuan body count the abortion industry racks up every year. Besides, rape and incest also account for only 1 percent of abortions, yet pro-aborts try to bring every abortion discussion back to this minority. You can’t have it both ways. Either the 1 percent cases are relevant or not.
The other lie — only slightly less egregious — is that these abortions are only carried out to save the mother’s life. Yet even former abortionists and current OB/GYNs will tell you that the life-saving abortion, to borrow a phrase, isn’t a thing. It is never necessary to kill a viable baby in order to save his mother. How could it be? If there is a potentially fatal complication with the pregnancy, the child can simply be delivered. Indeed, he will have to be delivered either way. The only question is whether you will take the extra step of executing him first. Obviously this step can have no medical value for the mother.
In reality, late-term abortions can happen simply because the mother decides she doesn’t want the child. Teen Vogue ran a piece in defense of the practice and the first example they gave was a woman who had an abortion in the second trimester because she “wasn’t ready” and didn’t have “financial stability.” Defend the dismemberment of a child for financial reasons if you want, but you can’t claim it’s medically necessary. Other late-term abortions might occur if the child suffers from a serious ailment or disability. But killing a person because he’s disabled or supposedly going to die anyway is not medically necessary either. If it is, then we have ventured fully into eugenics territory and the implications extend far beyond the womb.
No matter how you look at the picture, the talking points offered by the pro-abortion side are ridiculously false. President Trump is right to call for a ban on this barbarity. And all decent people in the country agree with him.

No comments:

Post a Comment