Lietz Rants: Abortion

Introduction

This summer I fell out of my habit of keeping up on recent events. Luckily I was able to find out what happened with the abortion bill in Texas. This was the most important story I had yet to fully follow. Once I read a few articles about the bill passing I was able to glean some thoughts from the comments posted on each. What I saw was mostly Leftist rhetoric and hateful attacks on the few who don't support abortion that posted.

As this is a rant, it will read more like a newspaper "advice" or "thought" column and I will not be citing statistics or studies. Google is your friend and frankly, I've still been attacked despite having all sorts of numbers and studies to support my point. Pro-abortion  people are often going on such assaults. Well, I'm mad as hell and now it's my turn.

The Bill

First it is important to note that the Texas bill raises standards of abortion mills, forces them to have hospital care at the ready, and makes adoption the first choice that workers are supposed to refer to (though this last point is fuzzy and I cannot pinpoint it). Since 20 weeks is even less than Roe V Wade's ruling, many are in a tizzy. Despite many alleged incidences of unsanitary and poor practice at such clinics, many are bemoaning that hospital care must be available. The list goes on.

The main, over-arcing complaint is that so few Planned Parenthood clinics provide abortions. This may be news to some, but regardless of a single clinic's services, the workers are instructed (and will) reference a woman to a clinic that will perform an abortion. Considering abortions are the moneymaker for PP this shouldn't be such a shocker. Check the tweets of @Defund_PP to find some material on the matter.

The Irony

Growing up, though until I was a certain age I wasn't told precisely what it all was, my mother told me if "woman things" needed taken care of, there was a doctor (OB/GYN) for such cases. Miraculous, huh? Such a doctor isn't just for middle-age and old people. You want more of a walk-in style and such that PP offers? Petition it, don't use it as an excuse to keep PP running.

Never mind that the Leftist rhetoric and their sheep continue to spout "CHOICE OR ELSE!" in various formats. Life begins at conception. That life cannot function on its own for a certain amount of time is a massive slippery slope (this is logically allowed because it is true). It develops in the womb, yet it is unique with its own set of DNA, fingerprints, and other markers that we often use to define a person. But they aren't, apparently, oh no! They are simply "fetuses." While an appropriate medical term, the unborn is still alive. I can call an unborn baby a potato, a tree, a cup, or anything else whether its medically accurate or correct at all. It's still alive. "BUT CHOICE!," I've heard and been yelled at about.

Choice?

What choice are we talking about? Murder, essentially. Here's the clever part: even if life begins at conception, by referring to the baby as a "fetus" and thus not a person yet, the definition of murder doesn't actually apply. Forget that to murder is to kill which is the ending of a life. By deciding on their own definitions, Anti-Women people change that. Really it's just a matter of semantics. Life begins at conception and if that life is stopped at anytime beyond a natural death, it's murder. Telling a woman that it's simply a choice is a lie and disrespectful. Women are the noble ones who carry us and give birth to us. Do not lie to them and make them dishonorable for it.

The rationale is that since a woman carries the baby then she should have the say in what happens to it. First I find this logic abhorrent because it brings up more problems than it solves. Why not apply that to a child in someone's care? What about the elderly? Only difference is that they're outside the womb. Logically, they can be just as much a burden. They take resources, take time out of work (or are more expensive), and they are unique individuals. This left me scratching my head until I heard some women and pro-abortionists as to why abortions are just dandy.

Women should have the choice to get an abortion, they say. But in the case that a woman chooses to have sex, she automatically accepts the consequences, from emotional and physical to spiritual. Usual disclaimer: I'm aware of rape, but the exception should not make the rule, evil as it is. Copping out of that by saying you should be absolved of one of the consequences of your own actions is irresponsible. Last time I checked, I had to take responsibility and be honorable about my own actions. Of course I can't become pregnant so apparently I have no say. Sarcasm aside, there are special cases that come up that are claimed to be legitimate.

The first is physical defect. There are two sides to this, the unborn that will have problems or won't live long, and the defects that would hurt/kill the mother. Children such as those with Down Syndrome fall into the first category. Many people rant about how such children take time, money, and resources. Regardless of disadvantages and the perceived burden they would have, that doesn't make any such children not-people.

If a child won't live long, I question why a woman would want to have an abortion. There are indeed negative side effects of abortion. Why risk those? Yes, giving birth is no rose garden, my mother reminds me of that if I'm complaining too much. My point is that you should not be able to kill even if the targeted person will die anyways. Why be responsible for that? Why not remember even a brief amount of time with your child instead of just killing it? Never mind that there are cases of doctors being wrong about defects. Imagine the horror of finding out you terminated a normally healthy child. I know this borderlines on a scare tactic, but I sincerely mean it. That would not be a great exchange, finding out you did not, in fact, spare a child of suffering.

What About...?

If the birth of the child would endanger the mother, then it is logical that you would not want the child to die or for the mother to die. Perhaps a C-section is viable or some other form of delivery. The bottom line either way is this: if the doctors have to choose a life to save, it is usually the mother, especially if the baby doesn't have much of a chance. This is not an abortion. It is the act of trying to maintain two lives and sadly failing at doing so. I'm sure some people would say that's a lot of trouble to go through, especially a C-section or special birth. Life isn't found on convenience and either way it would be more convenient not to have sex in the first place.

All this build up is to the old canard of pregnancy by rape. Yes, the old canard. You see, if a woman is impregnated by some sick psycho, the child chose not to be born any more than the woman chose to be raped. In case it isn't clear, neither the woman nor the baby asked for such an event to happen. To kill a child based on that is as sick of reasoning as the rapist's. Many would say "But the child would remind her of the rapist!" That's true and a very hard  truth at that. However, consider that killing that child and still having the memory of rape could be far worse. You would be answering one injustice with another, taking action on the helpless, just as the sicko who started it all.

Conclusion

The heart of the issue is abortion is used as birth control. It's seen as a convenience, not the taking of life. That's why abortion providers can't let bills pass that affect their bottom dollar. It's why the arguments that I debunk are made.