Getting Burned Alive: The Abortion Issue

I had a dream last night that my unsubscribe link sent me an e-mail saying, “Would you please stop taking on divisive issues and stick to the touchy-feely stuff?” Just to be obstinate, my answer to that request was to write this article.

You’re probably familiar with Gianna Jessen from an ad the Republicans ran during the presidential campaign. She’s the young woman afflicted with cerebral palsy as a result of surviving a botched abortion. Gianna has also appeared on many television shows, including Hannity and Colmes, and, incredibly, has run marathons and travels the world speaking out on the rights of unborn babies.

Gianna, now thirty-one, says her seventeen-year-old biological mother was seven-and-a-half months pregnant when she had an abortion at a Planned Parenthood clinic. The only reason Gianna is with us today is because the abortionist was not on duty when she was born, so the nurse called an ambulance to take her to the hospital. Miraculously, she survived, but a lack of oxygen to her brain left her with what she calls “the gift of cerebral palsy.”

Gianna says she was hated at conception and hated in the foster home she was placed in as an infant. It wasn’t until she was seventeen months old that she experienced love when a woman by the name of Penny took her into her home (and Penny’s daughter later adopted her). Best of all, Gianna says she is loved by God — referring to herself as “God’s girl.”

Now, as a pro-life activist, Gianna says she is “hoping to be hated,” because “the silent holocaust didn’t win over me.” She recognizes that in today’s secular-progressive world, speaking out against what has become the status quo is an invitation to hatred. After making that point, she then asks her audiences, “Are you willing to be hated?”

Abortion aside, it’s a darn good question, because in today’s insane world, many of us are too cowardly to make our beliefs known for fear of being ostracized. Which is why the greatest civilization in the history of mankind is losing its foundational principles by default.

So, am I willing to be hated enough to say what I really believe about this explosive subject? Yes, I am. Abortion is, without question, the most divisive issue in our very divided country. And for millions of women, it’s become their sole political issue: You’re either for it or you’re against it. And if you’re against it, you’re the enemy. End of discussion.

I don’t try to appeal to single-issue thinkers, because they normally are not open to trying to at least process opposing views. A refusal to agree is a perfectly legitimate position to take, but a refusal to listen is not.

It’s not so much that you harm others by refusing to listen. It’s that you harm yourself. Why would anyone not want to open his mind to information — information that he has the option to discard if it is not to his liking?

With that, masochist that I am, I’ll weigh in …

Oversimplified, “pro-choice” people see a fetus as a parasite on a woman’s body, and believe that such a woman has a natural right to rid herself of that parasite. Though this argument is offensive to many — especially those who approach the subject from a religious point of view — honesty compels me to admit that it is a reasonable position.

On the other side of the coin is the libertarian argument that no one has a right to commit aggression — especially murder — against any other human being. The fact that I refer to it as “the libertarian argument” may be puzzling to some, given that most libertarians are pro-choice. But such libertarians seem to forget that, first and foremost, libertarianism is opposed to violence.

It is understandable, then, why Ron Paul’s anti-abortion stance has angered many libertarians — a stance based on his first-hand experience as an obstetrician who has witnessed hundreds of babies crying and gasping for air as they died in operating-room wastebaskets.

So, though a fetus may be hitching a ride on its mother’s body, many believe that, as a human being who is evolving, he/she should have the right to live. As Gianna puts it, if a woman’s life is being violated by taking away her right to an abortion, what about the rights of the baby? Again, a perfectly reasonable argument.

I believe it is the height of arrogance to opine that life begins only after a baby escapes the birth canal — particularly when he/she is sometimes killed, or left to die, after successfully making it through. I’d like to believe that a large majority of people are against killing babies who are already out of the womb, or even close to making it out. Babies who are suffocated, starved, or just thrown away are the victims of murder, plain and simple.

But what about fetuses in the second trimester of development, or even the first trimester — or who are just a few weeks past conception? I believe that the debate over when life begins is not a legitimate one. It’s just a plain medical fact that a fetus, no matter how young it may be, is in the process of evolving into a human being from the moment the miracle of conception takes place.

So, technically speaking, my opinion is that aborting a fetus is a fancy way of saying “murdering a fetus.” If a pro-choice advocate phrases it as such, then I believe the parasite argument is a legitimate one. Saying that one favors murdering an early-term human being is, I believe, a more honest way of presenting one’s argument.

Look, let’s face the reality that the pro-life/pro-choice debate will never be resolved. For Christians and people of many other faiths, abortion violates God’s will, so no compromise is possible. And if, by some miracle, we ever end up with a staunchly conservative Supreme Court and Roe v. Wade were to be overturned, the ensuing chaos and violence would make our economic collapse look like peaceful times by comparison.

Just something for all of us to think about … with an open mind. Oh, and by the way, if you’re wondering why I didn’t mention cases of incest and rape, it’s because I didn’t want to divert attention from the central issue — the question of whether so-called “abortions on demand” are moral or immoral.

Well, now I’ve gone and done it. By saying what I really believe, I’m sure I’ve managed to anger readers on both sides of the abortion issue, so, notwithstanding my unsubscribe link’s request that I stick to touchy-feely stuff, it will probably have to work overtime for a couple of days.

In any event, I have a suspicion that you have an opinion on this issue.